Trump meets with Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, continuing his embrace of autocrats

Associated Press

Trump meets with Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, continuing his embrace of autocrats

Nicholas Riccardi and Justin Spike – March 8, 2024

FILE - Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban speaks at CPAC in Dallas, Aug. 4, 2022. Former President Donald Trump is meeting Friday, March 8, 2024, with Orban, a prominent conservative populist whose crackdowns in Hungary have sparked criticism that he's eroding that country's democracy. The meeting comes as Hungary has had conflicts with President Joe Biden's administration. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban speaks at CPAC in Dallas, Aug. 4, 2022. Former President Donald Trump is meeting Friday, March 8, 2024, with Orban, a prominent conservative populist whose crackdowns in Hungary have sparked criticism that he’s eroding that country’s democracy. The meeting comes as Hungary has had conflicts with President Joe Biden’s administration. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)
A fisherman casts a line near Mar-a-Lago, as former President Donald Trump is planning to meet Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Friday, March 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)
A fisherman casts a line near Mar-a-Lago, as former President Donald Trump is planning to meet Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Friday, March 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)
A security guard stands near an entrance to Mar-a-Lago, as former President Donald Trump is planning to meet Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Friday, March 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)
A security guard stands near an entrance to Mar-a-Lago, as former President Donald Trump is planning to meet Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Friday, March 8, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)

Former President Donald Trump met Friday with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as the likely Republican presidential nominee continued his embrace of autocratic leaders who are part of a global pushback against democratic traditions.

Orbán has become an icon to some conservative populists for championing what he calls “illiberal democracy,” replete with restrictions on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. But he’s also cracked down on the press and judiciary in his country and rejiggered the country’s political system to keep his party in power while maintaining the closest relationship with Russia among all European Union countries.

In the U.S., Trump’s allies have embraced Orbán’s approach. On Thursday, as foreign dignitaries milled through Washington, D.C., ahead of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, Orbán skipped the White House and instead spoke at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank overseeing the 2025 Project, the effort to create a governing blueprint for Trump’s next term.

“Supporting families, fighting illegal migration and standing up for the sovereignty of our nations. This is the common ground for cooperation between the conservative forces of Europe and the U.S.,” Orbán wrote on X, formerly Twitter, after his Heritage appearance.

He then flew to Florida, where met Trump late Friday afternoon at the former president’s beachfront compound, Mar-a-Lago. Orbán posted on his Instagram account footage of him and his staff meeting with Trump and the former president’s staff, then of the prime minister walking through the compound and handing Melania Trump a giant bouquet of flowers.

In the video, Trump praised Orbán to a laughing crowd. “He’s a non-controversial figure because he says, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it. Right?” Trump said of the Hungarian prime minister. “He’s the boss.”

The Trump campaign said late Friday that the two men discussed “a wide range of issues affecting Hungary and the United States, including the paramount importance of strong and secure borders to protect the sovereignty of each nation.”

Campaigning Friday in Pennsylvania, Biden said of Trump: ’You know who he’s meeting with today down in Mar-a-Lago? Orbán of Hungary, who’s stated flatly that he doesn’t thinks democracy works, he’s looking for dictatorship.”

“I see a future where we defend democracy, not diminish it,” Biden added.

Orbán’s approach appeals to Trump’s brand of conservatives, who have abandoned their embrace of limited government and free markets for a system that sides with their own ideology, said Dalibor Rohac, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“They want to use the tools of government to reward their friends and punish their opponents, which is what Orbán has done,” Rohac said.

The meeting also comes as Trump has continued to embrace authoritarians of all ideological stripes. He’s praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Orbán’s government has reciprocated, repeatedly praising the former president.

On Friday, Hungary’s Foreign Minister, Péter Szijjártó, posted from Palm Beach, hailing Trump’s “strength” and implying that the world would be more peaceful were he still president.

“If Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States in 2020, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, would not have broken out and the conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved much faster,” he wrote.

Orbán has served as Hungary’s prime minister since 2010. The next year, his party, Fidesz, used its two-thirds majority in the legislature to rewrite the nation’s constitution. It changed the retirement age for judges, forcing hundreds into early retirement, and vested responsibility for appointing new judges with a single political appointee who was widely accused of acting on behalf of Fidesz.

Fidesz later authored a new media law and set up a nine-member council to serve as the country’s media regulator. All nine members are Fidesz appointees, which media watchdogs say has facilitated a major decline in press freedom and plurality.

The country’s legislative lines have been redrawn to protect Fidesz members and no major news outlets remain that are critical of Orbán’s government, making it almost impossible for his party to lose elections, analysts say.

Orbán backed Trump’s reelection effort and has had frosty relations with the Biden administration, which pointedly did not invite Hungary to a summit on democracy it organized after the president took office. Hungarian officials have accused Biden’s ambassador to the country, former human rights lawyer David Pressman, of interfering in internal governmental affairs.

Earlier this week, Hungary objected to Biden’s choice of a former Dutch prime minister to serve as NATO’s new commander, potentially stalling the appointment.

The Hungarian leader also has enthusiastically boosted Trump’s latest presidential campaign, posting a message encouraging Trump to “keep fighting” after he was hit with the first of what would be four criminal cases against him last year. Last week, Orbán declared that a win by the former president would be “the only serious chance” for ending the war in Ukraine.

A video from the Heritage appearance posted by Orbán’s political director showed the prime minister speaking with Vivek Ramaswamy, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican presidential nomination before dropping out and endorsing Trump. The Hungarian leader also met with Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser who remains a vocal ally of the ex-president and is active in global populist circles.

Orbán’s visit this week comes after he signed a new National Sovereignty Law that penalizes any foreign support of political actors in Hungary, part of the prime minister’s longstanding battle against the European Union and international nonprofits criticizing his erosion of Hungary’s democracy.

“Orbán is setting up this huge barrier to anyone interfering in Hungarian elections, but Orbán’s interfering in all sorts of other countries’ elections,” said Kim Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist and Hungary expert.

Orbán is one of a small group of conservative populists who have publicly aligned themselves with U.S. conservatives trying to oust Biden in November. Last month, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele and Argentine President Javier Milei spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington. Orbán was a featured speaker at the 2022 event, after which he met Trump at the former president’s New Jersey golf course.

Several conservative populists have won European elections in recent years, including in Italy and Sweden. But leaders in those countries have remained staunch opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, not battled with the European Union government or taken steps that alarm democracy advocates as Orbán has.

Scheppele said the parallels between Trump and Orbán go beyond ideology. She noted that Orbán is not very religious but has become a hero to Christian conservatives for his hardline stances, much like Trump.

The two men face a similar electoral quandary as well, she added.

“They’ve got the same problem,” Scheppele said. “How do you leverage a really solid base, which is not an actual majority, at election time?”

Riccardi reported from Denver and Spike from Budapest. Associated Press political writer Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

Trump’s GOP governing platform from Hell. 15 promises Donald Trump has made so far in his campaign for a second term

CNN

15 promises Donald Trump has made so far in his campaign for a second term

Piper Hudspeth Blackburn and Abby Turner – March 6, 2024

Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has made a number of promises on the campaign trail, including rolling back car pollution rules, building 10 new cities and appointing a special prosecutor to investigate President Joe Biden and his family.

While some of Trump’s plans are lacking in detail, here are some of the policies he says he would enact if elected for a second term.

Immigration

Trump has made immigration and the border a central campaign issue, successfully pressuring Republicans to reject a major bipartisan border deal last month and making a trip to the southern border on February 29, where he touted his previous hard-line immigration policies.

In a Des Moines Register op-ed published roughly a week before winning the Iowa caucuses in January, Trump vowed to use the “Alien Enemies Act to remove known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States.”

“We will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement — including parts of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and DHS,” he wrote.

In a video posted on Truth Social in late February before his border visit, Trump also promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

After the Israel-Hamas war began last October, Trump also promised to terminate the visas of “Hamas’ sympathizers.”

“We’ll get them off our college campuses, out of our cities and get them the hell out of our country, if that’s OK with you,” he added.

Drug cartels

The former president has also made waging “war” on drug cartels a priority for his second term. If elected, Trump said in his November 2022 campaign announcement that he would ask Congress to ensure that drug smugglers and human traffickers can receive the death penalty for their “heinous acts.”

Trump also vowed to “take down” drug cartels by imposing naval embargos on cartels, cutting off cartels’ access to global financial systems and using special forces within the Department of Defense to damage the cartels’ leadership.

Education

Trump announced plans in a September 2023 campaign video to close the Department of Education and send “all education and education work and needs back to the states.”

“We want them to run the education of our children, because they’ll do a much better job of it,” he added.

The former president has also promised to “put parents back in charge and give them the final say” in education. In a January 2023 campaign video, the former president said he would give funding preferences and “favorable treatment” to schools that allow parents to elect principals, abolish teacher tenure for K-12 teachers, use merit pay to incentivize quality teaching and cut the number of school administrators, such as those overseeing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Trump also said in that campaign video that he would cut funding for schools that teach critical race theory and gender ideology. In a later speech, Trump said he would bring back the 1776 Commission, which was launched in his previous administration to “teach our values and promote our history and our traditions to our children.”

The former president said he would charge the Department of Justice and the Department of Education with investigating civil rights violations of race-based discrimination in schools while also removing “Marxists” from the Department of Education. A second Trump administration would pursue violations in schools of both the Constitution’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, which prohibit the government establishment of religion and protect a citizen’s right to practice their own religion, he said.

Health care

Last November, Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act, known colloquially as Obamacare, in a series of posts on Truth Social. A Trump-backed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare failed in 2017 after three Republicans senators joined with Democrats to vote against the bill.

“Getting much better Healthcare than Obamacare for the American people will be a priority of the Trump Administration,” he said.

“It is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of HEALTH. America will have one of the best Healthcare Plans anywhere in the world. Right now it has one of the WORST!,” he continued. He also doubled down on his vow during a speech in early January.

Trump also vowed in a June 2023 campaign video to reinstate his previous executive order so that the US government would pay the same price for pharmaceuticals as other developed countries. Some of the former president’s pharmaceutical policies were overturned by Biden.

Gender care

“I will revoke every Biden policy promoting the chemical castration and sexual mutilation of our youth and ask Congress to send me a bill prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states,” Trump said at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference last March.

Trump added in a campaign video that he would issue an executive order instructing federal agencies to cut programs that promote gender transitions, as well as asking Congress to stop the use of federal dollars to promote and pay for gender-affirming procedures. The former president added that his administration would not allow hospitals and health care providers to meet the federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare if they provide chemical or physical gender-affirming care to youth.

Justice system

Trump has promised to use the Department of Justice to attack critics and former allies. In several videos and speeches, the former president also laid out plans to gut the current justice system by firing “radical Marxist prosecutors that are destroying America.”

“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Trump said in June 2023 remarks. “I will totally obliterate the Deep State.”

Trump said in a campaign video last year that he would reinstate a 2020 executive order to remove “rogue” bureaucrats and propose a constitutional amendment for term limits on members of Congress.

To address what he labeled the “disturbing” relationship between technology platforms and the government, the former president said in a January 2023 video that he would enact a seven-year cooling off period before employees at agencies such as the FBI or CIA can work for platforms that oversee mass user data.

Trump added in multiple campaign releases that he would task the Justice Department with investigating online censorship, ban federal agencies from “colluding” to censor citizens and suspend federal money to universities participating in “censorship-supporting activities.”

In a September 2023 speech at the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand Summit in Washington, DC, Trump also touted plans to continue appointing conservative judges.

“I will once again appoint rock-solid conservative judges to do what they have to do in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia; Samuel Alito, a great gentleman; and another great gentleman, Clarence Thomas,” he said.

Trump has also pledged to “appoint U.S. Attorneys who will be the polar opposite of the Soros District Attorneys and others that are being appointed throughout the United States.”

In a September 2023 speech in Washington, DC, Trump also announced that he would appoint a task force to review the cases of people he claimed had been “unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration.” Trump noted that he wanted to “study the situation very quickly, and sign their pardons or commutations on day one.”

It’s a move that could lead to potential pardons of many rioters from the January 6, 2021, insurrection – which he suggested he would do at a CNN town hall in May 2023.

Crime

Trump said in two February 2023 campaign videos that if “Marxist” prosecutors refuse to charge crimes and surrender “our cities to violent criminals,” he “will not hesitate to send in federal law enforcement to restore peace and public safety.”

Trump added that he would instruct the Department of Justice to open civil rights investigations into “radical left” prosecutors’ offices that engaged in racial enforcement of the law, encourage Congress to use their legal authority over Washington, DC, to restore “law and order” and overhaul federal standards of disciplining minors to address rising crimes like carjackings.

Addressing policies made in what Trump calls the “Democrats’ war on police,” the former president vowed in a campaign video that he would pass a “record investment” to hire and retrain police, strengthen protections like qualified immunity, increase penalties for assaulting law enforcement officers and deploy the National Guard when local law enforcement “refuses to act.”

The former president added that he would require law enforcement agencies that receive money from his funding investment or the Department of Justice to use “proven common sense” measures such as stop-and-frisk.

Foreign policy

Trump has continued his attacks against member countries of NATO, a European and North American defense alliance. At a South Carolina rally last month, Trump said he would not abide by the alliance’s collective-defense clause and would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” if a member country didn’t meet spending guidelines.

“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

The former president has also previously pledged to end the war in Ukraine, though he’s offered no details on how he would do so. “Shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Trump said at a New Hampshire campaign event last year, adding in another speech that it would take him “no longer than one day” to settle the war if elected.

Trump further addressed his strategy of stopping the “never-ending wars” by vowing to remove “warmongers,” “frauds” and “failures in the senior ranks of our government,” and replace them with national security officials who would defend America’s interests. The former president added in a campaign video that he would stop lobbyists and government contractors from pushing senior military officials toward war.

In addition, Trump has said he would restore his “wonderful” travel ban on individuals from several majority-Muslim countries to “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country” after Biden overturned the ban in 2021.

New cities and flying cars

Trump said in multiple campaign videos that he would spearhead an effort to build so-called “Freedom Cities” to “reopen the frontier, reignite American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people, all hardworking families, a new shot at home ownership and in fact, the American Dream.”

In his plan, the federal government would charter 10 new cities on federal land, awarding them to areas with the best development proposals. The former president said in a campaign video that the Freedom Cities would bring the return of US manufacturing, economic opportunity, new industries and affordable living.

In the March 2023 video, Trump added that the US under a second Trump administration would lead in efforts to “develop vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicles for families and individuals,” not letting China lead “this revolution in air mobility.” The former president said these airborne vehicles would change commerce and bring wealth into rural communities.

Electric vehicles

Trump has promised to roll back new car pollution rules at the Environmental Protection Agency that could require electric vehicles to account for up to two-thirds of new cars sold in the US by 2032. Biden’s electrical vehicle-related policies, Trump claimed at a Michigan rally last September, “spell the death of the US auto industry.”

“On day one, I will terminate Joe Biden’s electrical vehicle mandate, and I will cancel every job-killing regulation that is crushing American autoworkers,” Trump added.

Energy

Trump has promised to reduce energy prices by increasing domestic production. In several campaign appearances, he has laid out plans to end delays in federal drilling permits and leases.

“We’re going to ‘drill, baby, drill’ right away,” Trump told a crowd of supporters in Des Moines, Iowa, during a victory speech after winning the state’s Republican caucuses in January.

At a South Carolina rally in February, he pledged to remove limits on American natural gas exports.

Trade

At the same rally in South Carolina,Trump pledged to impose “stiff penalties on China and other trade abusers.”

“It’s called you screw us, and we screw you,” Trump said.

Under his proposed “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” the former president said if other countries impose tariffs on the US, the country would impose “a reciprocal, identical” tariff right back.

It was the same pledge Trump made in a campaign video in 2023: to impose the same tariffs that other countries may impose on the US on those countries. The goal, the former president said then, is to get other countries to drop their tariffs.

As part of a larger strategy to bring jobs back into the US, Trump also said he would implement his so-called “America First” trade agenda if elected. By setting universal baseline tariffs on a majority of foreign goods, the former president said Americans would see taxes decrease as tariffs increase. His proposal also includes a four-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods, as well as stopping China from buying up America and stopping the investment of US companies in China.

Trump also said in February that he would consider imposing a tariff upward of 60% on all Chinese imports if he’s reelected.

The former president has particularly focused on China, vowing in a January 2023 campaign video to restrict Chinese ownership of US infrastructure such as energy, technology, telecommunications and natural resources. Trump also said he would force the Chinese to sell current holdings that may put national security at risk. “Economic security is national security,” he said.

Economy

Trump has promised to extend the cuts from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, notably the TCJA’s individual income tax breaks. The former president has also talked about reducing the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 15%.

“I will make the Trump tax cuts the largest tax cut in history,” the former president said last month at the Black Conservative Federation’s Honors Gala in South Carolina. “We’ll make it permanent and give you a new economic boom.”

Trump has also pledged to repeal Biden’s tax hikes, “immediately tackle” inflation and end what he called Biden’s “war” on American energy production.

Second Amendment

“I will take Biden’s executive order directing the federal government to target the firearms industry, and I will rip it up and throw it out on day one,” Trump said at the 2023 National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action leadership forum last April.

The former president also promised in the speech that the government would not infringe on citizens’ Second Amendment rights and that he would push Congress to pass a concealed carry reciprocity.

Equity

“I will create a special team to rapidly review every action taken by federal agencies under Biden’s ‘equity’ agenda that will need to be reversed. We will reverse almost all of them,” Trump said in a campaign video.

Trump added in multiple campaign videos that he would revoke Biden’s equity executive order that required federal agencies to deliver equitable outcomes in policy and conduct equity training. If elected, Trump said he would also fire staffers hired to implement Biden’s policy, and then reinstate his 2020 executive order banning racial and sexual stereotyping in the federal government.

CNN’s Tami Luhby, Kate Sullivan and Kristin Holmes contributed to this report.

Today’s Supreme Court is a threat to democracy — but activists plan to fight back

Salon – Opinion

Today’s Supreme Court is a threat to democracy — but activists plan to fight back

Paul Rosenberg – March 3, 2024

Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

The Supreme Court is a supreme threat to American democracy. That was Abraham Lincoln’s view in light of the Dred Scott decision, expressed in his First Inaugural Address. And it was vividly illustrated after Lincoln’s assassination, when the Civil War amendments and civil rights legislation passed by Congress were effectively nullified by the Supreme Court, enabling former Confederates and other white supremacists to destroy the possibility of multiracial democracy for almost a century. “Our democracy suffers when an unelected group of lawyers take away our ability to govern ourselves,” as Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie wrote in 2021, based on his testimony before the do-nothing Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Since then, the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned the precedent of Roe v. Wade, has brought Bowie’s point home with a vengeance. But it’s not just about abortion. On gunsenvironmental protectiondiscriminationlabor rightsaffirmative actionstudent debt relief and numerous other issues, Mitch McConnell’s court-packing scheme and Donald Trump’s appointments have succeeded in dramatically undercutting Americans’ people’s capacity for self-government and the promotion of “the general welfare” promised in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

While the electoral backlash against Dobbs has been heartening, that’s essentially a reaction to the most alarming and personally invasive Supreme Court decision, not a proactive effort to dismantle the source of the threat. That’s why the new online lecture and discussion course, “What to Do About the Courts,” feels so important: It’s an effort to begin laying the groundwork for fundamental court reform. It’s a collaboration between the Law and Political Economy Project and the People’s Parity Project which featured Bowie as its leadoff lecturer on Jan. 30. A second session, looking at the history of reform efforts, was held Feb. 20.

“This is really core to what our organizations are doing and how we’re thinking about the work that we need to be engaged in for many years to come,” PPP executive director Molly Coleman told Salon. The online venue, she said, made it possible to “open this up quite a bit more than if we had done this as an in-person meeting group on a law school campus.”

The discussion component is critical, according to LPEP executive director Corinne Blalock: “It really does reflect our theory of change and how we understand how ideas move in the world.”

“We didn’t want this to just be a lecture series,” Coleman added. “Court reform should be something that’s built by the people. Part of this project is thinking about how we end judicial supremacy, how we make sure that the people have power, and not just unelected, unaccountable judges. We would be remiss if that wasn’t modeled in our programming.”

For generations, Americans have largely been blind to the Supreme Court’s profoundly anti-democratic character, because under former Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court was instrumental in reversing the post-Reconstruction destruction of democracy, most notably with the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which officially ended school segregationBut however significant Brown was in cultural and historic terms, in reality it only reduced segregation and certainly did not restore multiracial democracy. Congress began to do that with the 1965 Voting Rights Act — but nearly 50 years later, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court undid much of that law and once again began undermining democracy.

The halo effect around the Supreme Court, resulting from the Brown decision and the Warren court’s legacy more broadly — which continued into the 1970s with Roe v. Wade — was finally shattered for most attentive Americans by the Dobbs decision in 2022. Now, perhaps, Bowie’s unheeded warning a year before that may get the hearing it deserves, fleshed out by a range of possible court reforms that have been considered, implemented in the past (the subject of the course’s second session) or modeled elsewhere by healthier democracies (the subject of its upcoming third one).

“Really thinking about transforming the court felt politically inconceivable a few years ago,” said Blalock. “There were certainly scholars who felt the urgency, but we needed the material stakes to really connect it to people’s lives. With all the atrocious things that the Supreme Court has done recently, that piece has sort of been done for us. So our role is helping people connect that to a set of political ideas.”

There’s another and perhaps larger concern, Blalock continued. “For everyone on the left or left of center who’s thinking about transformative change, whether it’s climate change, reproductive rights or labor, it feels like the Supreme Court is looming,” she said. “We felt that our two organizations were particularly well-suited to step in and help connect the dots.”

“Despite this moment where the Supreme Court is at the center of so many conversations, despite a lot of excitement and energy around the possibility of court reform, there is a lack of information about what court reform can look like,” Coleman added. “Even folks who are living and breathing this work in advocacy spaces might be talking about expansion or might be talking about ethics reform, but so many of these other reforms that have been tried in the past haven’t entered the mainstream conversation. We felt there was an important void to fill, to take some of these ideas that are being discussed in the legal academy or by historians and bring them to the mainstream of progressive organizing spaces.”

The series began with Bowie addressing the foundation of the problem: the wildly disproportionate power of the Supreme Court, where five individuals can effectively thwart the will of 340 million citizens. Because judicial supremacy is so deeply ingrained in our system, people tend to assume it’s enshrined in the Constitution. It’s not. Lawyers are taught that it derives from the Supreme Court’s legendary 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, but they’re generally not taught the larger story that casts the decision in a questionable partisan light. One might describe it, in fact, as a judicial coup.

As Bowie recounted, when the Federalist government under President John Adams passed the wildly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, the opposing party led by Thomas Jefferson didn’t turn to the courts. “Federal judges were just as partisan, just as committed to stamping out political opposition, as anyone else,” Bowie said. “So Jefferson’s party ended up getting rid of this law not by going to court, but by winning an election.”

In the lame-duck session that followed Jefferson’s victory in the controversial election of 1800, Adams and the Federalists created a bunch of new federal courts and packed them with supportive judges. That included Adams’ appointment of John Marshall, the outgoing secretary of state, as chief justice of the Supreme Court. After that, Bowie said, Jefferson’s party proposed a bill to destroy or undo all these new courts, which led to fierce debate:

Federalists responded [that] federal courts need to have this power to strike down federal laws. If Congress can simply get rid of the courts, then federal courts won’t have this power anymore. And for Jefferson’s party in Congress, they thought the idea that federal courts would strike down federal laws was this crazy innovation. Just a really bad idea and obviously partisan in motivation. … They thought there was nothing in the Constitution that says a federal judge can strike down a federal law. It would be a really weird distribution of power to give federal judges this control.

In the wake of that debate, Bowie said, Marshall authored the famous majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which “effectively just parroted the Federalist position from Congress.” In short, the position held by a minority in Congress became the law of the land — and not on some narrow legalistic point, but on the fundamental question of who is allowed to interpret the Constitution.

That remained a purely theoretical issue for more than 50 years. “Marshall didn’t end up disagreeing with Congress about the constitutionality of any legislation for the remainder of his term,” Bowie said. Then came the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which struck down the Missouri Compromise and denied Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the nation’s territories. This became a defining issue for the newly-formed Republican Party, which didn’t just shrug and accept it. As Bowie put it, “They responded, ‘What is the court doing? The court should not have this power,’” and ran on a platform “that repudiated the court’s power to decide this constitutional question.” After Lincoln was elected in 1860, “he and Congress passed legislation that did precisely what the Supreme Court said Congress could not do.”

There was certainly much more to Bowie’s presentation — and much more Supreme Court mischief that undermined the rights of Black Americans for generations — but that should be sufficient to show that our meek modern-day acceptance of judicial supremacy rests upon a profound ignorance of our own history. Both Jefferson and Lincoln, revered today as the founders of our two major parties, vehemently rejected judicial supremacy. It’s time for 21st-century Americans to seriously consider doing the same — or at the very least, to place significant limitations on it. The question, of course, is exactly how to limit or replace judicial supremacy, and what specific reforms can get us there.

The February session of “What to Do About the Courts” began to answer those questions, looking into the history of court-disempowering reforms and proposals, with professors Samuel Moyn of Yale and William Forbath of the University of Texas. Moyn cited a number of reform ideas:

  • Popular overrides of court decisions by referendum, as proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in his 1912 third-party presidential campaign.
  • “Jurisdiction stripping,” meaning laws that limit the court’s jurisdiction over certain kinds of statutes.
  • A supermajority requirement, meaning a bare majority of five justices could not invalidate laws passed by Congress, as proposed by progressive Sen. William Borah in 1923.
  • Congressional authority to override any Supreme Court decision by a two-thirds vote, as proposed by Sen. Robert La Follette Sr. in his 1924 third-party presidential campaign.
  • Prohibiting federal court injunctions in labor disputes, as mandated by the 1932 Norris–La Guardia Act.

Forbath looked more closely at the history of labor law: how the growth of a national economy increased the use of secondary strikes and boycotts, how common law and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were used to declare them illegal and how that, along with court-sanctioned state violence, “inspired a decades-long, high-profile campaign of official union defiance of anti-strike and anti-boycott decrees,” undergirded by “a richly elaborated moral and constitutional order, a rival order built on the First and 13th amendments.” That movement declared, Forbath said, that “courts were quite literally creating property rights in man and elevating property rights over human rights.”

During the 1920s, Forbath continued, there were “constant calls and dozens of bills and proposals for laws and amendments to the Constitution that would enact what we call court reform. They brought movement constitutionalism to the halls of Congress,” resulting in the aforementioned Norris-La Guardia Act, even before FDR’s New Deal. That came about in part, Forbath said, because the judiciary had “squander[ed] its own legitimacy. Too many working-class Americans had come to see the courts for what they were: They were the place where the ruling class went to rule, dispensing class-bound decisions in the name of the Constitution.”

That kind of keen historical awareness, vigilance and activism may well be needed today. Arguably that shouldn’t be difficult to ignite, given the current radical Supreme Court and its recent actions. It may be much more difficult to create a unified movement with a clear vision for change. Divisions. to be sure, existed in earlier eras as well. “Back in the early 20th century, there was a rift between Black freedom organizations like the NAACP and labor and progressives who were most invested in labor reforms,” Forbath said. While the latter groups wanted to disempower the courts, the Black freedom movement largely did not, because the courts — however inadequate they were — appeared to be its most reliable allies.

That particular division no longer applies, but there are undeniably different priorities for different constituencies that could fragment reform efforts. More broadly, Forbath asked: “Do we want movement justices and judges, as brash in their way as the right-wing movement justices today? Or do you want more technocratic judges, committed above all to judicial restraint and a fair reading of progressive statutes?” The answer is not immediately obvious.

The seminar’s next session, Blalock said, will be “on the international and comparative perspective, which helps make this all feel so much more doable, particularly when for so long these have been treated like radically fringe ideas. After that, we’re going to dig a little more into the weeds about what the options are [and] really walk through the specific nature of how the reform would work. The final session is going to be on how we build a movement around this. We’re bringing in Astra Taylor from the Debt Collective, in conversation with Sabeel Rahman, who comes from more the government policy side, to talk about how we take these ideas forward beyond the reading group.”

So far, the feedback has been “alarmingly positive,” Coleman said. “The biggest thing we’re hearing is that even current law students aren’t hearing these ideas on their campus. They really feel that they’re getting something unique in this space [and] they’re really excited to bring it back to broader communities.” Beyond law school campuses, there are leaders in progressive organizations who “want every single person they work with to be at the next iteration of the reading group,” she said. “People want more folks to know what conversations are happening. That’s been pretty exciting.”

While attorneys, law students and activists are important audiences for these ideas, there’s also a need for broader conceptual, narrative and communications work aimed at a general audience. The right has successfully unified under the rhetoric of constitutional “originalism,” regardless of how vacuous that idea is in practice (Salon stories here and here). Conservative power is grounded in conceptual simplicity, even though the right’s ideas have proven inherently inadequate to the complexity of the modern world. To counter it, liberals and progressives must address that complexity — real history and real science, not myths — while heeding Einstein’s advice: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In short, the progressive movement needs a counternarrative of its own, although identifying just one narrative might prove impossible.

One possible narrative, alluded to above, is to focus on the constitutional concept of “general welfare,” articulated in terms of public goods, an underlying logic laid out in Donald Cohen and Allen Mikalean’s 2022 book “The Privatization of Everything.” Another possibility is to focus on public health, which, as I argued in 2021, can “serve as a long-term, overarching framework to reframe our politics, to provide us with new common sense in addressing a wide range of diverse issues by highlighting common themes and connecting what works.”

Other narratives are surely possible. But it’s crucial that they encompass those four elements: common sense, a wide range of diverse issues, common themes and a pragmatic focus on what works. It’s no accident that the common law tradition encompasses those central themes. The promise of “What to Do About the Courts” is that history teaches us that change is possible and we can make it happen: Once legal scholars and activists on the left have fashioned the right framework, they believe they’ll have the wind at their backs.

Rachel Maddow Fries SCOTUS for Trump Immunity Hearing Date: ‘It’s BS’ and ‘They Don’t Care That We Know It’ | Video

The Wrap

Rachel Maddow Fries SCOTUS for Trump Immunity Hearing Date: ‘It’s BS’ and ‘They Don’t Care That We Know It’ | Video

Ross A. Lincoln – February 28, 2024

Rachel Maddow had strong feelings about the news Wednesday that the Supreme Court will take up Donald Trump’s “presidential immunity” claims, but won’t hear the case until late April.

Maddow appeared alongside fellow MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell as a guest on Wednesday’s “All In With Chris Hayes” where, during their discussion, she explained why the decision to even hear the case at all makes no sense and called the nearly 2 month delay “BS.”

“They know it, and they don’t care that we know,” Maddow added. You can watch the clip now at the top of the page.

For background, at issue is the unconstitutional argument Trump introduced last fall in the criminal trial over his efforts to overthrow the government after the 2020 election: That U.S. presidents have total legal immunity from all criminal acts. In case you forgot, yes, his lawyers say this applies even if a president literally murdered political opponents.

After that trial was delayed, Special Counsel Jack Smith attempted to fast track this question to SCOTUS but in December the court denied that request without explaining why. Then on Feb. 6, a federal appeals court firmly rejected it, after which Trump’s lawyers appealed to SCOTUS.

So it is that on Wednesday, after taking nearly all month to say anything, SCOTUS announced it will hear arguments on April 22. Legal experts and critics of the court’s right wing majority say this is nothing more than an effort to help delay Trump’s criminal trials until after the 2024 election. Which brings us back to Maddow.

During the discussion with Hayes and O’Donnell, Maddow said, “the cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here… putting this off for seven weeks, sitting on it for two weeks for no reason, obviously pushing all of the cases that they can push, pushing them to the point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases.”

“Got it? It’s the timing but it’s also the idea that the immunity thing is an open question,” she continued, displaying some sarcasm in her voice. “Right. Is it really? Presidential immunity an open question? Because what’s the most famous pardon in American history? Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon once he had resigned and was a former president.”

“Why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon? Quote, ‘as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation as president,’ meaning as a result of stuff he did while President, quote, ‘Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and the discretion of the authorized prosecutor,” Maddow continued.

“So the idea that this is an open question, that it might be that a former president can never be tried for something that he did, because he was president when he did it, is disproven by a plain reading of American history and the whole justification for Richard Nixon being pardoned in the first place,” Maddow explained. “So the idea that this has to be taken up, is them saying ‘the sky is green.’”

“And I think even for the non lawyers among us to be able to say, ‘you know what, the sky is not green, even on our worst day, this is B.S., you’re doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron.’ It’s just flagrant, flagrant bull pucky, and they know it, and they don’t care that we know it. And that’s disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court,” Maddow concluded.

From Frigid Cells to Mystery Injections, Prison Imperiled Navalny’s Health

The New York Times

From Frigid Cells to Mystery Injections, Prison Imperiled Navalny’s Health

Paul Sonne and Ivan Nechepurenko – February 18, 2024

FILE – Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny appears via a video link from the Arctic penal colony where he is serving a 19-year sentence, provided by the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service during a hearing of Russia’s Supreme Court, in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. Russia’s prison agency says that imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny has died. He was 47. The Federal Prison Service said in a statement that Navalny felt unwell after a walk on Friday Feb. 16, 2024 and lost consciousness. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko,)

Alexei Navalny portrayed himself as invincible, consistently using his hallmark humor to suggest that President Vladimir Putin couldn’t break him, no matter how dire his conditions became in prison.

But behind the brave face, the reality was plain to see. Since his incarceration in early 2021, Navalny, Russia’s most formidable opposition figure, and his staff regularly suggested his conditions were so grim that he was being put to death in slow motion.

Now his aides believe their fears have come true.

The cause of Navalny’s death in prison at 47 has not been established — in fact his family has not yet even been allowed to see his body — but Russia’s harshest penal colonies are known for hazardous conditions, and Navalny was singled out for particularly brutal treatment.

“Aleksei Navalny was subjected to torment and torture for three years,” Russian journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dmitry Muratov wrote in a column after his death was announced Friday. “As Navalny’s doctor told me: the body cannot withstand this.”

More than a quarter of Navalny’s incarceration since 2021 was spent in freezing “punishment cells” and he was often denied access to medical care. He was transferred to ever crueler prisons. And at one point, he said he was being given injections but was prevented from finding out what was in the syringes. His team worried he was again being poisoned.

What specifically led to Navalny’s death Friday at a remote prison above the Arctic Circle may remain a mystery. The Russian prison service released a statement Friday afternoon saying that Navalny felt sick and suddenly lost consciousness after being outside.

Russian state media reported that he had suffered a blood clot. But the story changed Saturday, when Navalny’s mother and lawyer arrived at the prison. They were told he had suffered from “sudden death syndrome,” which appeared to indicate sudden cardiac arrest, according to Ivan Zhdanov, director of Navalny’s anti-corruption foundation.

Investigators told a lawyer for Navalny that a repeat examination was being conducted and the results would be released next week. Navalny’s staff called for the body to be released immediately so that his family could order an independent analysis, accusing Russian authorities of lying to conceal the body.

According to his aides, Navalny had been put in a punishment cell at the Arctic prison in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region on Wednesday, two days before Russian authorities announced his death.

His spokesperson, Kira Yarmysh, said that marked his 27th time in such an inhumane space, usually a roughly 7-by-10-foot concrete cell with unbearable conditions — cold, damp and poorly ventilated. His latest round of punishment, had he survived, would have taken his total period in such a cell to 308 days, more than a quarter of his time in incarceration, according to Yarmysh.

Once a day at 6:30 a.m., prisoners in the punishment cells at the Arctic facility are allowed into a coffin-like concrete enclosure open to the sky through a metal grate, Navalny said in a message from the facility this year. It appeared to be after such a session Friday that Navalny lost consciousness, according to the Russian prison service’s account. It was about minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside.

In a letter from prison last month, Navalny described how he could walk a total of 11 steps from one end of the open-air space to the other, noting that the coldest it had been so far on one of his walks was minus 26 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Even at this temperature, you can walk for more than half an hour, so long as you have time to grow a new nose, ears and fingers,” he wrote. “There are few things as invigorating as a walk in Yamal at 6:30 in the morning. And what a wonderful fresh breeze blows into the yard, despite the concrete enclosure, wow!”

While walking there on a recent day, he said he was freezing and thinking about how Leonardo DiCaprio climbed into a dead horse to escape the cold in the wilderness survival movie “The Revenant.” A dead horse would freeze in that part of Russia within 15 minutes, Navalny surmised.

“Here we need an elephant — a hot, fried elephant,” he said.

Navalny often employed such wit in the face of his inhumane treatment. But it had become increasingly clear, over his three years of incarceration, that he might not survive.

“The cumulative treatment of Navalny over several years in prison — in a way you could say it was driving him close to death,” Mariana Katzarova, the United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Russia, said in an interview Saturday. “We don’t know yet. We need an investigation.”

For a time, Navalny did seem almost invincible.

In August 2020, he fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow, after being poisoned with a nerve agent from the Russian-made Novichok family. He was put into a medically induced coma for two weeks during treatment in Germany — and survived.

The U.S. government later attributed the poisoning to Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the FSB.

Despite the assassination attempt, Navalny returned to Russia in early 2021 to continue his fight against Putin, who denied Russia’s involvement in the poisoning, and quickly found himself imprisoned. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately.

In March 2021, he complained about severe back pain that later turned into a problem with his leg.

He demanded that prison authorities provide him with proper medical care and give him medication. Instead, they subjected him to sleep deprivation, he said. At the end of March 2021, he declared a hunger strike over his treatment, and Russian doctors and Hollywood stars took up his cause in open letters to Putin.

About three weeks later, Navalny was examined by an independent panel of doctors. The tests by the doctors found that, “soon enough, there won’t be anyone to treat,” Navalny said in a message posted to Instagram.

Last year, Navalny wrote from prison that his jokes about the punishment cell shouldn’t normalize the environment.

He lamented that a fellow political prisoner, who had spoken out against the war in Ukraine, had been put in a punishment cell, despite being disabled and missing part of a lung.

Navalny described dire health conditions in prison, where he said many inmates suffered from tuberculosis. He also complained early last year about the administration in his former prison placing a mentally unwell person in a cell opposite his, as a form of torment, and an ill prisoner in his small cell.

At the time, his lawyer, Vadim Kobzev, said the prison deliberately infected him with a respiratory illness, refused to give him medicine and then “treated” him with huge doses of contraindicated antibiotics. Navalny suffered severe stomach pain and lost more than 15 pounds as a result, Kobzev said.

“These actions can’t be regarded as anything other than an open strategy to destroy Navalny’s health by any and all means,” Kobzev said in a statement at the time. “Obviously, the prison wouldn’t risk engaging in this level of demonstrative unlawfulness without approval from Moscow.”

Kobzev has since been arrested on extremism charges for associating with Navalny — part of a broader roundup of the opposition leader’s attorneys late last year.

Navalny suffered a dizzy spell and was put on an IV drip in an unexplained medical episode in early December. But Russian authorities still transferred him later that month from a prison in the Vladimir region, about 130 miles east of Moscow, to the “special regime” penal colony in the Arctic where he died.

Several doctors contacted after his death, including one who was involved in his initial treatment in the Siberian city of Omsk, said his death was likely unrelated to his poisoning more than three years earlier, given his robust recovery.

But he faced many other health hazards since then.

“A Russian prison is a place where you have to be prepared to die every day,” Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Russian tycoon who spent a decade in prison after challenging Putin, said Friday.

In the interview, Khodorkovsky, who was released in 2013, said a prisoner must find a way to treat the burden as a test in order to survive mentally, and Navalny had done that. But even then, he added, “this will not protect you from being killed.”

Putin Kills Off the Handsome Princes

Politico

Putin Kills Off the Handsome Princes

Matthew Kaminski – February 17, 2024

Misha Japaridze/AP

The last images of Alexei Navalny alive show him behind bars. He is a bit gaunt. His hair is shorter,missing its old sheen. Yet his eyes are the same as ever: They light up. In the video shot on Thursday, he jokes with a judge and a policeman. I’m running out of money, he says, a well-compensated judge should lend me some. His captors laugh. For a prisoner stuck in a camp above the Arctic Circle, he looks good — a strong man in whom you see the faintest of glimmers of optimism about his own and Russia’s future.

The other image that I dwelled on Friday shows Navalny and Boris Nemtsov. These two were the most prominent leaders of an inspired protest movement in the spring of 2012 that imagined a different kind of future for Russia. Borya is whispering impishly in Navalny’s ear, making him laugh. Both are handsome, tall, vigorous. The kind of men who turn heads.

Nemtsov was gunned down in February of 2015, at the foot of the Kremlin, a year into Vladimir Putin’s initial military assault on Ukraine. He was a youthful 55. Navalny died — no, let’s be honest here, was killed — on Friday, barely a week shy of the two-year anniversary of Putin’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine. He was 47.

They say authoritarians who survive have a talent for identifying and eliminating the greatest threats to themselves. To paraphrase Kremlin chump Tucker Carlson, Putin is a very talented man. He chose his prey well. In his time, Nemtsov was seen as a credible alternative — a reforming governor from Nizhny Novgorod who came to Moscow under the previous Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin. The taint of the chaos of the 1990s stuck to him; he was associated with the pain of the changes that had to be made and others that were avoided by Yeltsin, and that hindered him in the early 2000s. But Borya had different talents — a feel for people and retail politics and convictions — that Putin lacks.

By 2012, Navalny emerged as the most captivating face of the Russian opposition. He had dabbled in nationalist politics. Then he figured out he could use the Internet for well-documented crusades against corruption that made his name. He coined the phrase “crooks and thieves” to describe Putin and his coterie, and it stuck. It did feel like an opening, if ever so slight, existed in 2012. The regime was disliked, was wobbling. Nemtsov and Navalny had the middle classes of Moscow and St. Petersburg on their side. The political threat from them was direct. Especially for the last decade from Navalny. He knew how to use the media, he showed how to stand up to the regime with courage, and he was willing to make the sacrifices to one day try to lead Russia on another path.

Yet these men challenged Putin in other ways he must have keenly felt. There was the youthfulness and energy. Nemtsov was born seven years after Putin but acted and looked as if he came from another generation; Navalny was the next generation. They had a sense of humor and color to their faces. They were optimistic. They didn’t seem cynical. They had nice hair, too, atop imposing frames. Did that hurt the balding Putin’s ego — so sensitive that, as the joke that happened to be a fact went, he found the one man in Dmitry Medvedev who’s shorter than himself to stand in as president in 2008-12 when Putin was term-limited out of that office.

I note Nemtsov and Navalny’s evident masculinity since that trait is so important to Putin and his admirers abroad. No one besides his dog, the saying goes, knows what Putin really thinks. But you can imagine these men must have stirred more than Machiavellian insecurities in Putin. No pictures of the bare-chested Vlad on horseback comes close to the magnetism of the image I was looking at Friday.

Equally stark is the generational contrast. Putin and his people are old and look it. Dull and gray, they fit right in a group picture of the Soviet politburo circa 1982. You can note the same dynamic in play with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the 46-year-old president of Ukraine. He and his people, almost all in their forties or younger, came of age after the USSR collapsed. They look ahead. The boomer Putin mourns its passing.

I last saw Nemtsov in June of 2013 in Washington. Sitting on a panel next to me, he kept whispering in my ear. A quick joke. Once a compliment. He was warm, playful. His people were and remain immensely loyal to him. Including the writer and activist Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has survived two poisoning attempts and currently sits in a Russian penal colony, another of Putin’s political prisoners.

I got to know Navalny better in March of 2012. Protesters were in the streets. The coming presidential election was a sham. He promised defiance. “The Kremlin should understand these tens of thousands of people will never leave the streets,” he told me. “We will never consider Putin as a president with legitimacy.” More than the words, Navalny left a physical impression on you. He had presence and a relaxed kind of intensity. Then 35, he usuallywore jeans and an open shirt.

On election night, I went to an event thrown by the opposition and remember standing with Navalny and Garry Kasparov, the chess grandmaster and opposition leader. Navalny’s confidence from a few days before had dimmed. He and Kasparov saw the staged election was a victory for Putin; the regime would counter-strike with force. They were right. Kasparov left Russia for good the next year. Navalny was charged with bogus embezzlement charges in July, the first of many that kept him in and out of prison over the next 12 years — except for the long spell in a hospital following a nearly fatal poisoning attempt courtesy of the Russian secret services.

In another country, Borya and Alyosha — the diminutives by which they were known to many — might have had their happy endings. They were the dashing princes, Putin the toad. But this story takes place in the land of the Tsars. Here the Tsar murders at will. His people are numbed to it — some bravely laid flowers Friday night at an impromptu memorial in Moscow, but we know too how this will end. Alyosha will be a memory, as is Borya. How will it end for Putin? The recent leader he resembles most, Stalin, died angry, ashen-faced and ailing, but in his own bed. It took over thirty years for any glimmers of optimism to emerge in Russia, in the 1980s with Gorbachev’s glasnost, openness, and the experiment with democracy in the 1990s, to be snuffed out with Putin’s ascendance in 2000. That’s not a happy thought. There aren’t any about Russia these days.

What Alexey Navalny wanted people to know “if they decide to kill me”

CBS News

What Alexey Navalny wanted people to know “if they decide to kill me”

Tucker Reals – February 17, 2024

What Alexey Navalny wanted people to know “if they decide to kill me”

“You’re not allowed to give up.” That was the central message Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny wanted to stress to his supporters in the event of his death. He said it in an Oscar-winning 2022 documentary about his life by Canadian director Daniel Roher, in which Navalny spoke about his political ideals and surviving a purported poisoning attack.

“If they decide to kill me, it means that we are incredibly strong,” said the anti-corruption campaigner who arguably turned into President Vladimir Putin‘s most potent political challenger. “We need to utilize this power to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed by these bad dudes.”

Russian prison authorities said Friday that Navalny had died after going for a walk, feeling suddenly unwell and then collapsing. The Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District said medics at the IK-3 penal colony in Russia’s far north were unable to revive him.

Navalny appears healthy in court video day before reported death

Navalny’s own team said they couldn’t verify the information about his death on Friday, but the following day they confirmed it, saying he was “murdered.” U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris unequivocally placed the blame on Putin’s government.

“This is of course terrible news, which we are working to confirm,” Harris said at the Munich Security Conference in Germany. “My prayers are with his family, including his wife Yulia, who is with us today, and, if confirmed, this would be a further sign of Putin’s brutality. Whatever story they tell, let us be clear: Russia is responsible.”

Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, spoke on stage at the Munich conference after Harris.

“You’ve probably all already seen the terrible news coming today. I thought for a long time whether I should come out here or fly straight to my children. But then I thought, ‘What would Alexey do in my place?’ And I’m sure he would be here. He would be on this stage.”

She made it clear that she didn’t trust any information coming from Russian government officials.

“They always lie. But if this is true, I want Putin, everyone around him, Putin’s friends, his government, to know that they will bear responsibility for what they did to our country, to my family and to my husband, and this day will come very soon,” Navalnaya said. “I want to call on the entire world community, everyone in this room, people all over the world, to unite together and defeat this evil, to defeat the terrifying regime that is now in Russia.”

Yulia Navalnaya, wife of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, attends the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Germany hours after Russian prison authorities said her husband had died at a remote penal colony in northern Russia, Feb. 16, 2024. / Credit: KAI PFAFFENBACH/REUTERS
Yulia Navalnaya, wife of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, attends the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Germany hours after Russian prison authorities said her husband had died at a remote penal colony in northern Russia, Feb. 16, 2024. / Credit: KAI PFAFFENBACH/REUTERS

Russia has been condemned globally for its invasion of neighboring Ukraine, which sparked a grueling war set to enter its third year on Feb. 24. Navalny was a fierce critic of what he called the “stupid war” launched by “madman” Putin.

In a cruel twist, Putin and his political allies — who have run Russia for decades — have used the war as a pretext to enact harsh new laws in the name of national security, dramatically curbing free speech. Laws put on the books over the last several years have given the government power to lock up anyone who criticizes Russia’s military or its actions in Ukraine.

It’s all part of a wider crackdown on dissent that reached a crescendo after pro-Navalny protests swept across the nation following the opposition leader’s 2021 arrest, and then took on new dimensions amid the Ukraine war.

Hundreds of politicians, opposition activists, journalists and civil society figures — including some of Navalny’s own top aides — are in prison or have fled Russia into exile.

Street protests in Russia are illegal without prior permission, which officials don’t grant to anyone known to oppose the government.

Taliban decrees on clothing and male guardians leave Afghan women scared to go out alone, says UN

Associated Press

Taliban decrees on clothing and male guardians leave Afghan women scared to go out alone, says UN

Associated Press – February 17, 2024

FILE – Afghan women wait to receive food rations distributed by a humanitarian aid group, in Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 23, 2023. Afghan women feel scared or unsafe leaving their home alone because of Taliban decrees and enforcement campaigns on clothing and male guardians, according to a report from the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)More

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Afghan women feel scared or unsafe leaving their homes alone because of Taliban decrees and enforcement campaigns on clothing and male guardians, according to a report from the U.N. mission in Afghanistan.

The report, issued Friday, comes days before a U.N-convened meeting in the Qatari capital is set to start, with member states and special envoys to Afghanistan due to discuss engagement with the Taliban and the country’s crises, including the human rights situation.

The Taliban — which took over Afghanistan in 2021 during the final weeks of U.S. and NATO withdrawal from the country — have barred women from most areas of public life and stopped girls from going to school beyond the sixth grade as part of harsh measures they imposed despite initial promises of a more moderate rule.

They are also restricting women’s access to work, travel and health care if they are unmarried or don’t have a male guardian, and arresting those who don’t comply with the Taliban’s interpretation of hijab, or Islamic headscarf.

The U.N. mission’s report, published Friday, said the decrees are being enforced through arrest, harassment and intimidation. Women said they increasingly fear going to public spaces owing to the threat of arrest and the “long-lasting stigma and shame” associated with being taken into police custody.

Over half of the women interviewed for the report felt unsafe leaving the house without a male guardian, or mahram. Risks to their security and their anxiety levels worsened whenever a new decree was announced specifically targeting them, the report said.

Women who went out with a mahram felt safer but noted the stress from depending on another person to accompany them. Some said their male guardians chided them for “wasting time” if they wanted to visit certain shops or stray from a route limited to performing basic necessary tasks.

This undercut chances to “enjoy even micro-moments of stimulation or leisure” outside the home, said the report.

Some women said that male relatives were also afraid and reluctant to leave the home with female relatives, as this would expose them to Taliban harassment.

A spokesman from the Vice and Virtue Ministry, the Taliban’s morality police that enforces such decrees, said it was “nonsense and untrue” that women are scared to go to the shops.

“There is no problem for those sisters (women) who have observed hijab,” said Abdul Ghafar Farooq. “As women are naturally weaker than men, then Shariah (Islamic law) has called mahrams essential when traveling with them for the sake of their dignity and respect.”

He said harassing women was against the law.

Heather Barr, from Human Rights Watch, told the Associated Press that Afghan women’s fear of leaving home unaccompanied was “damning and devastating” but not surprising.

It seemed to be a specific goal of the Taliban to frighten women and girls out of leaving their homes, Barr said.

“This begs the question of what on earth this discussion is in Doha, with the U.N. hosting special envoys,” she said. “We need to be asking why the focus of this meeting and every meeting isn’t about this crisis that is unprecedented for women around the world.”

The Taliban are not attending the Doha meeting, their chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a voice note to the AP on Saturday night.

A Foreign Ministry statement said participation would only be beneficial if the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban call their administration, are the sole and official representative for the country at the talks.

The U.N. envoy for Afghanistan last year warned the Taliban that international recognition as the country’s legitimate government will remain “nearly impossible” unless they lift the restrictions on women.

Tucker Carlson Condemns Alexei Navalny’s Death As “Barbaric” Days After Trumpeting Vladimir Putin’s Russia

Deadline

Tucker Carlson Condemns Alexei Navalny’s Death As “Barbaric” Days After Trumpeting Vladimir Putin’s Russia

Ted Johnson – February 16, 2024

The news of the death of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny very quickly put a focus on Tucker Carlson, the right-wing talk host who recently trekked to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin.

Carlson told the Daily Mail today that “it’s horrifying what happened to Navalny. The whole thing is barbaric and awful. No decent person would defend it.”

In the wake of reports of Navalny’s death, Carlson faced another round of backlash after interviewing Putin last week and for subsequent social media posts. In them, Carlson trumpeted a Moscow subway station and a grocery store.

Former congresswoman Liz Cheney wrote on X/Twitter earlier today, “This is what Putin’s Russia is, Tucker Carlson. And you are Putin’s useful idiot. Same with you J.D. Vance and other Putin-wing Republicans who are working to defeat Ukraine in its struggle for freedom.”

Carlson posted his interview with Putin on X/Twitter on Feb. 8, and in X/Twitter videos, he talked of the virtues of Moscow’s subway station and a supermarket, where he pointed out lower prices than in the United States. He said, “If you take people’s standard of living and you tank it, through filth and crime and inflation, you literally can’t buy the groceries you want, maybe it matters less what you say, whether you are a good person or a bad person, you are wrecking people’s lives and their country, and that is what are leaders have done to us. And coming to a Russian grocery store — the heart of evil — and seeing what things cost now, people live, it will radicalize you against our leaders. That’s how I feel anyway.”

RELATED: ‘Navalny’ Director Daniel Roher On Russian Opposition Leader’s Shocking Death At 47: “Putin Is Responsible”

At the World Governments Summit this week, Carlson was asked why he didn’t talk about Navalny, about freedom of speech, about assassinations or about restrictions on opposition in the upcoming election.

“I didn’t talk about the things that every media outlet talks about because those are covered, and I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following: That every leader kills people, including my leader. Leadership requires killing people,” Carlson said. “That is why I wouldn’t want to be a leader. That press restriction is universal in the United States. I know because I have lived it…. There is more censorship in Russia that there is in the United States, but there is a great deal in the United States.”

Those comments drew some comparisons to Donald Trump’s interview with then-Fox News host Bill O’Reilly in 2017. Less than a month after taking office, Trump was asked about Putin and O’Reilly noted, “He’s a killer.”

Trump responded, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

During comments on reports of Navalny’s death, President Joe Biden called on Congress to pass a $95 billion aid package that includes a new infusion of money to help Ukraine in its war with Russia. Biden also blasted Trump’s recent comment encouraging Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that don’t pay their due. Trump’s comments reflect a strain in the Republican party that admires Putin and his posturing, a reversal of Reagan-era conservatism.

Stuart Stevens, who was lead strategist for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, wrote, “The world will be pointing to the murder of Navalny and trying to shame Trump’s party for supporting Putin. It won’t work. Trump wants Putin’s power. He is in court demanding immunity to murder opponents. Violence is at the core of Trumpism. As Tucker Carlson makes clear, Trump supporters look at Russia and ask, ‘Why can’t America be Russia?’ They hate the America we love. They must be defeated.”

Putin critic Alexei Navalny, 47, dies in Arctic Circle jail

BBC News

Putin critic Alexei Navalny, 47, dies in Arctic Circle jail

Paul Kirby – BBC News – February 16, 2024

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny addresses supporters during an unauthorized anti-Putin rally on May 5, 2018
Alexei Navalny was Russia’s most prominent opposition leader of recent times

Russia’s most significant opposition leader for the past decade, Alexei Navalny, has died in an Arctic Circle jail, the prison service has said.

President Vladimir Putin‘s most vociferous critic, he was serving 19 years on extremism charges that were widely seen as politically motivated.

Navalny was moved to one of Russia’s toughest penal colonies late last year.

His wife Yulia has appealed to the international community “to help punish this regime”.

The prison service in Russia’s Yamalo-Nenets district where Navalny was being held said he had “felt unwell” after a walk on Friday.

He had “almost immediately lost consciousness”, it said in a statement, adding that an emergency medical team had immediately been called and tried to resuscitate him but without success.

“The emergency doctors declared the prisoner dead. Cause of death is being established.”

Navalny, 47, was last seen only one day before his death, looking well and laughing during a court hearing via video link.

Yulia Navalnaya took to the stage at the Munich Security conference on the verge of tears, with a warning that the news had only come from unreliable state sources.

“But if it’s true, I know Putin, all his allies, all his friends, all his government know they will be held responsible for what they’ve done… and this day will come sooner than you think.”

His mother Lyudmila Navalnaya was quoted as saying: “I don’t want to hear any condolences. We saw him in prison on the 12th [February], in a meeting. He was alive, healthy and happy.”

Navalny’s close aide Leonid Volkov cautioned that there was no way to confirm what had happened but said the prison authorities’ statement amounted to a confession that they had killed him.

Alexei Navalny was seen on Thursday during a court hearing via video link
Alexei Navalny was seen on Thursday during a court hearing via video link

There was minimal coverage on Russia’s state TV channels, although one report by RT suggested Navalny had suffered a blood clot. But that was ridiculed by Moscow specialist Alexander Polupan, who treated Navalny in the past, who said that kind of diagnosis could only be made from a post-mortem examination.

Within minutes of Navalny’s death being announced by the prison service, the international community hailed the courage of Vladimir Putin’s biggest domestic adversary.

France said he had paid with his life for resisting Russian “oppression”, while Norway’s foreign minister said Russian authorities bore a great responsibility for his death.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Munich that if the reports were accurate “his death in a Russian prison and the fixation and fear of one man only underscores the weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built”, adding that “Russia is responsible for this”.

Mr Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said merely that Navalny’s death had been “reported to the president”, who was on a visit to the city of Chelyabinsk. “Medics must somehow figure this out,” Mr Peskov said.

UK Foreign Minister David Cameron said “no-one should be in any doubt about the dreadful nature of Putin’s regime in Russia after what has just happened”.

Most of the Russian president’s critics have fled Russia, but Alexei Navalny returned in January 2021, after months of medical treatment. In August 2020 he was poisoned at the end of a trip to Siberia with a Novichok nerve agent.

His team succeeded in flying him out to Germany for specialist treatment and on his return to Moscow he was immediately taken into custody. He had been accompanied on the flight from Germany by his wife Yulia Navalnaya, embracing her at passport control before being led away.

He would never leave jail again in the next 37 months.

Law enforcement officers speaking with Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny before leading him away at Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, Russia January 17, 2021
Yulia Navalnaya last saw her husband at liberty at Moscow airport in January 2021

His last Instagram post to his wife two days ago said there were thousands of kilometres between them “but I feel that you are near every second”. He leaves two children, Dasha, who is studying in the US and Zakhar, who is still at school.

Navalny, who was 47, had long sought to challenge Vladimir Putin at the ballot box, but he was barred from running in the 2018 presidential election. Next month, Russia’s leader will stand unchallenged by any meaningful opposition.

Anti-war candidate Boris Nadezhdin was banned from standing in the election because of supposed irregularities found in the thousands of signatures submitted in support of his candidacy.

Navalny, whose opposition began in the form of an anti-corruption campaign, is the latest in a string of prominent Russian figures who have died while challenging Vladimir Putin’s rule.

Opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead on a Moscow bridge a stone’s throw from the Kremlin in 2015, and Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin was killed in August 2023 in an unexplained plane crash weeks after leading his mercenaries in an armed mutiny.The British Broadcasting Corporation

Yet Navalny repeatedly laughed off his friends’ concerns for his health. He was moved from a penal colony east of Moscow in December and was not seen for weeks until he reappeared in a penal colony in the Arctic town of Kharp.

Navalny said he had been taken on a 20-day trip around Russia, telling reporters during a court appearance by video that his conditions were “much better” than in his previous penal colony in Vladimir.

However, he was repeatedly punished by his prisons with solitary confinement. His spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh said last month he had spent more than 280 days in isolation.

Navalny had not been due to leave prison until his 70s, because of his most recent conviction for extremism last August. It was his third jail sentence and supporters accused the Kremlin of trying to silence him for good.

Russian human rights activist and journalist Eva Merkacheva said on Friday that he had been placed in solitary confinement at least 27 times, saying it “could not but play a role” in his death.

In such extreme conditions doctors knew that such punishment was very harmful to the human body, so under the law no-one could be given more than 15 days in isolation, she said.