Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere, MLK jr – Page 24

Who was Alexei Navalny? Fierce Putin critic reportedly found dead in arctic jail

Yahoo! News

Who was Alexei Navalny? Fierce Putin critic reportedly found dead in arctic jail

President Biden says the Russian president “is responsible Navalny’s death.”

Dylan Stableford, Senior Writer – February 16, 2024

Alexei Navalny, the 47-year-old jailed opposition leader and one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest critics, is dead, Russian prison officials announced Friday.

Navalny, who survived an assassination attempt with a nerve agent in 2020, had been imprisoned since returning to Russia in 2021. He was being held in a Russian jail about 40 miles north of the arctic circle.

🔊 How was his death announced?

A view of the entrance of the Arctic penal colony where Navalny had been jailed. — A view of the entrance of the Arctic penal colony in Kharp, Russia, where Navalny had been jailed. (AP Photo, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service said in a statement that Navalny lost consciousness and died after taking a walk and could not be resuscitated.

“The facility’s medical staff immediately arrived and an ambulance brigade was called,” the statement said. “All necessary resuscitation measures were taken, which did not lead to positive results. The ambulance doctors confirmed the death of the convict.”

🔎 Who was Alexei Navalny?

Navalny was born on June 4, 1976, near Moscow.

A former lawyer, he rose to prominence in the early 2000s and 2010s for leading nationalist marches and exposing what he called corruption among the Russian elite, describing Kremlin leaders as “crooks and thieves.”

As Reuters put it, Navalny “exposed some of the opulence of the lifestyles of senior officials, using the internet and even drones to illustrate what he described as their vast holdings and luxury property.”

Among them: a palace built on the Black Sea for Putin’s personal use; mansions and yachts used by ex-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev; and “a sex worker who linked a top foreign policy official with a well-known oligarch,” per the Guardian.

🇷🇺 A thorn in Putin’s side

Alexei Navalny and Yulia Navalnaya. — Alexei Navalny, with his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, leads a protest in Moscow in 2013. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Navalny had long been considered Putin’s top political foe. He led protests in Russia against election fraud and government corruption and was arrested and jailed for 15 days in late 2011 for “defying a government official” amid demonstrations against Russia’s parliamentary election.

In 2020, Navalny fell into a coma after a suspected poisoning while on a flight and was evacuated to Germany for treatment. He recovered and in 2021 returned to Russia, where he was promptly arrested on a parole violation charge and sentenced to his first of several jail terms totaling more than 30 years.

🗓️ Navalny’s final days

In December 2023, Navalny was quietly moved from a prison east of Moscow to a penal colony, nicknamed “Polar Wolf,” in the town of Kharp, some 1,200 miles northeast of Moscow.

The day after Christmas, he posted a string of messages on X joking that he was the “new Santa Claus” and telling his supporters, “Don’t worry about me. I’m fine.”

📢 An activist until the end

Navalny recently urged Russians to protest against Putin by turning out to vote at noon on election day next month.

“This can be a powerful demonstration of the mood of the country,” Navalny wrote on his Telegram channel, according to Reuters. “This will be a nationwide protest against Putin that takes place near your home. It’s available to everyone, everywhere. Millions will be able to take part. And tens of millions will witness it.”

Putin, the longest-serving Russian leader since Joseph Stalin, is running for a fifth term in office.

Navalny’s last public appearance was Thursday, when he appeared, via video link, to be in good spirits while laughing and cracking jokes during a court hearing.

↘️ Who is Navalny’s wife?

Yulia Navalnaya, also 47, is a former economist, banker and prominent public figure in Russia, where she is often described as the “first lady” of Putin’s opposition. She and Navalny met in the summer of 1998 in Turkey and were married two years later. They have two children.

On Friday, Navalnaya learned of Navalny’s death Friday in Munich, while attending the Munich Security Conference.

“I don’t know if we should believe the terrible news,” Navalnaya said. “But if it’s true, I want Putin, his entourage, Putin’s friends and his government to know they will be held responsible for what they have done to our country, my family, and my husband. And that day will come very soon.”

The Biden administration’s reaction to Navalny’s death

https://s.yimg.com/rx/ev/builds/1.2.36/pframe.html Biden on reports of Navalny's death: 'More proof of Putin's brutality' Scroll back up to restore default view.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who are also in Munich, responded to the reports of Navalny’s death Friday.

Harris said the administration was working to confirm his death.

“If confirmed, this would be a further sign of Putin’s brutality,” Harris said. “Whatever story they tell, let us be clear, Russia is responsible.”

“If these reports are accurate, our hearts go out to his wife and to his family,” Blinken said. “Beyond that, 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. Russia is responsible for this.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House early Friday afternoon, President Biden praised Navalny for his bravery — and put the blame for his death squarely on Putin.

“Make no mistake,” Biden said. “Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death.”

Harris says reports of Navalny’s death are another sign of Putin’s brutality

CNN

Harris says reports of Navalny’s death are another sign of Putin’s brutality

Priscilla Alvarez, CNN – February 16, 2024

US Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday called reports Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has died in a Russian prison “terrible news,” and that “Russia is responsible.”

“We’ve all just received reports that Alexey Navalny has died in Russia. This is, of course, terrible news, which we are working to confirm,” Harris said as she began her remarks.

She added, “If confirmed this, would be a further sign of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s brutality. Whatever story they tell, let us be clear: Russia is responsible.”

The Russian prison service said Friday morning that Navalny died. He had been serving multiple lengthy prison sentences for crimes that he had denied. He faced those charges after returning to Russia following treatment in Germany after being poisoned in August 2020. Navalny returned to Russia after that treatment concluded in 2021, and he was quickly arrested.

Navalny had long been a point of contention between the US and Russia. President Joe Biden previously told reporters in 2021 that he warned Putin that the consequences would be “devastating for Russia,” if Navalny died in prison.

Harris had been facing the fraught task of reassuring US allies on the world stage, as lawmakers struggle to pass aid for Ukraine and Israel and former President Donald Trump threatens to abandon NATO allies.

It was another high-profile moment for Harris to address the Munich Security Conference Friday amid a consequential moment in US foreign policy, as ongoing conflicts overseas have roiled domestic politics. It came at a delicate time for the White House, which continues to grapple with the fallout of the special counsel report that called into question President Joe Biden’s mental acuity and has placed renewed focus on the vice president.

But it suddenly became an opportunity for Harris to be the most prominent American voice to offer a reaction to the reports of Navalny’s death.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said on NPR earlier Friday that the US was working to confirm Navalny’s death.

“If it’s confirmed, it is a terrible tragedy, and given the Russian government’s long and sordid history of doing harm to its opponents, it raises real and obvious questions about what happened here,” Sullivan said.

The administration had repeatedly called for Navalny’s immediate release, and CNN has reported Biden called for Navalny’s release in his first phone call with Putin after taking office in 2021.

After her opening comment on Navalny, Harris transitioned into her prepared remarks that were meant to reassure American allies over the future of US foreign policy.

Chief among the worries from the US’ top allies is Trump’s statement last weekend that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense.

After the Biden administration helped strengthen the bonds of the NATO alliance following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump’s statement is sparking real concern that he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if reelected.

During her speech, Harris launched a veiled attack against Trump, describing his foreign policy approach as “dangerous” and issuing a stark warning if the US cedes ground to Russia.

“They suggest it’s in the best interest of the American people to isolate ourselves from the world, to flout common understandings among nations, to embrace dictators, and adopt the repressive tactics and abandon commitments to our allies in favor of unilateral action,” Harris said.

“Let me be clear – that worldview is dangerous, destabilizing and indeed shortsighted,” she said.

Trump had drawn immediate consternation last weekend for saying he would encourage Russia to invade countries who don’t meet their NATO obligations. The comment concerned not only the American foreign policy establishment but from American NATO allies, who have watched warily as Russia proceeds with its invasion of Ukraine. The former president on Wednesday said he wouldn’t defend NATO nations who don’t spend enough on defense but did not repeat his comment about encouraging Russia to do whatever they wante

“I’ve been saying look, if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect, OK. And Biden said, ‘Oh this is so bad, this is so terrible that he would say that.’ No, if they’re not paying their bills, and most of them weren’t when I got there,” Trump said at a campaign event in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Harris maintained Friday that US commitment to NATO remains “ironclad” in the wake of Trump’s comments.

It’s a similar message to the one that has been promoted by her boss this week. Biden took direct aim at his predecessor on Tuesday, pointedly accusing Trump of “bowing down” to Putin in some of his harshest criticism of his likely rival on foreign policy to date.

Trump, Biden claimed, sent a “dangerous and shocking” signal with his comments, delivered during a weekend campaign rally.

Concern is also rising over the ability of Washington to send more aid to Ukraine. For months, the White House’s national security supplemental request that includes billions in funding for Ukraine and Israel, among other priorities, has remained stalled in Congress over GOP infighting.

The White House has repeatedly stressed the need to deliver additional funds to Ukraine, framing it as a matter of national security. Harris will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday.

Harris called Putin’s war in Ukraine an “utter failure” and stressed the consequences of ceding any ground to Russia, reaffirming US support for Ukraine.

“Imagine if America turned our back on Ukraine and abandoned our NATO allies and abandoned our treaty commitments. Imagine if we went easy on Putin. Let alone encouraged him,” Harris said.

“History offers a clue. If we stand by while an aggressor invades its neighbor with impunity, they will keep going. In the case of Putin, that means all of Europe would be threatened. If we fail to impose severe consequences on Russia, other authoritarians across the globe would be emboldened,” Harris said.

This story has been updated with additional developments on Friday.

Trump has one trick up his sleeve to dodge crushing NY fraud judgment

Salon – Opinion

Trump has one trick up his sleeve to dodge crushing NY fraud judgment

Thomas G. Moukawsher – February 16, 2024

Donald Trump’s whole life has prepared him, not for the presidency, but for this moment—beset by lawsuits and criminal charges in court. Some calculations show he filed over 3,500 lawsuits over the years. He knows the vulnerabilities of our legal system and is having no trouble exploiting them.

He hasn’t needed much help in Florida. He appears to have a willing ally in Judge Aileen Cannon in the secret documents case who, so far, has either ruled in Trump’s favor or, in ruling against him, has left the door open to giving Trump what he wants later. What Trump wants is delay. Judge Cannon is likely to give it to him.

In Washington, Trump claims that he is so immune from criminal responsibility that he could have used Seal Team Six to assassinate his political opponents without consequences. Trump has bought himself time with this issue, including asking for more time to petition the Supreme Court. If he fails on this issue, you can expect a series of other claims—each one holding things up.

In Georgia, Trump’s seedy collaboration with the National Enquirer has combined with his connoisseurship of the courtroom to deliver us a Jerry Springer Show moment with Trump and his allies examining the love life of District Attorney Fani Willis on live television. Once again, Trump has come out a winner, smothering the main event and making Willis, Judge Scott McAfee, and the judicial system look ridiculous.

And most ridiculous of all, the first criminal case against Trump going to trial is the case about his payoff to a porn star. Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg claims Trump falsified business records and disguised a campaign contribution by paying hush money about an affair. More silliness, more salaciousness. More distraction from what matters: the allegation that Donald Trump, president of the United States, attempted by fraud, coercion, and a violent attack on the United States Capitol to overthrow the democratically elected government of our country.

And if you think Trump at least faced the music in his New York civil fraud case with Justice Arthur Engoron’s ruling ordering Trump to pay $355 million in penalties, think again. The case is far from over. Trump will stall the case, diddle the docket, drag out the appeal, appeal from the appeals court, and, if he becomes cornered resort to another trick he has considerable experience with—he will declare bankruptcy.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but deeply engrained formalism in court plays right into Trump’s hands. When in doubt, judges delay. When there is a claim, however frivolous and intentionally dilatory, it must receive the same slow service as every other claim at the courthouse window. While the idea of due process is the constitutional promise of a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time, too many judges prefer the appearance of fairness that long delays promise but don’t deliver. Too many times, justice delayed is justice denied, but judges in our contemporary system simply aren’t set up to do it any other way, and Trump and other courthouse cognoscenti know how to exploit it.

Instead of exalting form over substance, courts should recognize the humanism of legal dilemmas and focus on it. That is, every case in court has a human heart. A value against lying, cheating, stealing, violence or what have you is in play and the fate of real people are on the line. When the parties’ claims and not the process is the focus, courts can push aside obstacles and achieve substantial justice. Parties can be ordered to make all their legal challenges to a case at the same time to keep them from dribbling out and causing long delays. Judge McAfee should have ruled on whether a hypothetical relationship between prosecutors would have anything to do with Donald Trump before allowing a circus about it. The upper courts should see Donald Trump coming and rule fairly and quickly on his claims in New York. The courts should try Trump’s attempted takedown of democracy before they put on a show about a payoff to a porn star.

American courts are in the spotlight. Trump’s opponents can be grateful that he may face justice someday, but not one of the cases against him will be over before the election.

“Trump is out of money”: Republicans fear Trump will drain RNC funds to pay his own legal bills

Salon

“Trump is out of money”: Republicans fear Trump will drain RNC funds to pay his own legal bills

Tatyana Tandanpolie – February 15, 2024

Lara Trump NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

A crop of senior GOP officials fear that Donald Trump‘s effort to pack the Republican National Committee with his preferred picks could give way to the former president using the RNC to cover his legal bills — again. Their worries come on the heels of Trump’s endorsements earlier this week of his daughter-in-law, among other allies, to assume leadership roles at the committee. “While those endorsements have been well-received by many committee members — who note that it is customary for a presidential candidate to put his imprint on the party’s main campaign apparatus — others fear a potential misallocation of party resources,” Politico reports.

Henry Barbour, a Mississippi committee member, told the outlet that he thinks “most RNC members will go along” with Trump’s committee lineup “unless there is a play to use RNC funds for President Trump’s legal bills.” Another member who has been critical of the former president, Oscar Brock, told Politico that the RNC’s recently passed budget did not allot any money for Trump’s legal fees. Brock did recognize, however, the potential for the committee to reconfigure its financial plan to do so upon request, which the Tennessee committeeman said he’d be against. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for the committee to pay the legal bills for things done outside the work of the committee,” Brock told Politico.

Chris LaCivita, a senior Trump campaign strategist, called the concerns about the committee paying Trump’s legal fees “manufactured.” Instead, the money would come from other avenues, including Trump’s Save America PAC and his own pocket, senior campaign advisors told Politico. In 2021 and 2022, the RNC forked over nearly $2 million to two legal firms working on the former president’s cases but stopped once Trump launched his current presidential campaign. It will still have a legal fund intended to handle lawsuits, recount efforts and typical legal business for the party.

Lara Trump this week vowed that “every penny” at the RNC would go toward helping Trump.

Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Trump is on pace to drain his war chest for his legal fees this summer after already spending more than $50 million on legal bills.

“Trump is out of money which is why he is going hard at Ronna Romney so he can take over the RNC treasury,” tweeted former Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

New documents underscore why the Supreme Court must let Jack Smith’s Trump case move forward

Salon – Opinion

New documents underscore why the Supreme Court must let Jack Smith’s Trump case move forward

Amanda Marcotte – February 14, 2024

Jack Smith; US Supreme Court Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

Despite taking their own sweet time to render what should have been a five-minute decision ruling that Donald Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did do Americans one big favor: They removed most of Trump’s avenues to continue delaying what has become known as the “January 6” criminal case against him. I’ll spare readers the tedium of recounting the legal maneuvering that was avoided, and sum it up as this: The court gave Trump a Monday deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. He, as usual, put it off until the last minute but did indeed make that appeal by the end of the day.

Now there is only one question: Will the six Republican justices on the court sabotage the case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith?

Almost no legal experts think that the justices, despite being partisan hacks, will humiliate themselves by upholding Trump’s asinine claims of total license to commit as many crimes as he wishes. But, as Ian Millhiser at Vox explains, “the Court could simply sit on his request for a very long time without taking any action on it.” Doing so would destroy the chance that Trump’s criminal trial for his attempted coup would occur this year. If he wins the election, it would destroy the case completely. There is no doubt that Trump would appoint a corrupt crony to head the Justice Department, and that stooge would kill the case.

On the same day that Trump filed his appeal, Talking Points Memo released a blockbuster report that underscores what a devastating blow to democracy it would be if the Supreme Court derailed this criminal case against Trump. As Josh Kovensky writes, Kenneth Chesebro, one of the unindicted (so far) co-conspirators in Smith’s D.C. case, provided “a trove of documents” to Michigan prosecutors as part of a cooperation agreement to avoid charges of efforts to steal the election in that state. (Chesebro has already pled guilty in a similar case in Georgia.) The documents show how Trump and his conspirators hatched a plan to steal the election by interrupting, delaying, filibustering or otherwise blocking the congressional certification of electoral votes. The idea was to sow chaos for days, if not weeks, in hopes the Supreme Court would step in and simply nullify the election, declaring Trump president.

The full plan never came to fruition, in large part because the conspirators didn’t get enough buy-in from then-Vice President Mike Pence and other key Republican leaders to pull it off. But the documents are a chilling reminder that the violence of the Capitol insurrection was just a small part of what was a vast, sweeping conspiracy to steal the 2020 election from President Joe Biden and the voters who elected him. This matters, because “January 6” has become a shorthand for an attempted coup that, in actuality, lasted for two months and across multiple states. No doubt, the Capitol riot was the flashiest part of this effort. But there’s a real danger that the violence that day is eclipsing the public’s understanding of all the events — and crimes — that led up to QAnon idiots storming the Capitol.

Worse, focusing on the Capitol riot at the expense of talking about Trump’s larger attempted coup allows Republicans to gaslight voters about how serious Trump’s efforts to overthrow democracy really were. One of the favorite tactics of Republicans is to pretend the riot was just a protest that got “out of hand” and deny that Trump was deliberately instigating it with his “fight like hell” speech.

That lie is harder to pull off when one looks at the larger context. Trump and his conspirators had been plotting for months to derail the electoral vote count, creating what they hoped would be a pretext to nullify the election. The attack on the Capitol was part of this larger plan. That’s why it’s ridiculous to pretend Trump didn’t deliberately instigate the riot. Taken together with all his other actions to derail the electoral vote-counting, it’s clear that the riot was part of the larger scheme to keep the election from being certified.

It’s worth revisiting the indictments that Smith filed against Trump last summer. While journalists tend to call this the “January 6” case, the indicting document refers to a conspiracy that stretched from “November 14, 2020 through on or about January 20, 2021.” The evidence is extensive, but only a fraction of it involves the efforts to bring followers to the Capitol to be foot soldiers in the insurrection. Mostly it’s about the various efforts to persuade officials on all levels of government to certify fraudulent electors in the place of the real ones, or to fabricate enough votes for Trump to throw the election, or to get the Justice Department to declare the election fraudulent as a pretext to throw out the results. It’s only when all that failed that Trump turned to violence to create the chaos that Chesebro and his associates thought could be used as cover to declare Trump the victor.

It’s crucial that Smith get to present this evidence to a jury — and to the nation — before the election, and ideally, before the official party nominations are secured at the conventions this summer. Republican voters will probably pick Trump as their nominee anyway, but it’s only fair that they have a chance to be reminded of how central he was to his own coup before they decide to move forward. Trump is more than a guy who gave an ill-advised speech on a single day. He spent every day for weeks scheming to overthrow democracy. Voters really are owed a full accounting of the attempted coup, and not this reductive view that it was just one bad day at the Capitol on January 6.

The new Chesebro documents are a strong reminder that the plot to steal the election really hinged on whether the Supreme Court would, as Trump hoped, use the Trump-created chaos as an excuse to simply declare the election null and claim Trump can retain power indefinitely. There’s some reason to believe the justices, like Pence, wouldn’t have played along it if came to that, because they knocked down Trump’s other lawsuits asking for the courts to nullify the election.

But if they slow-walk this case so that Smith doesn’t get to try it before this year, the court has proved themselves just as corrupt as Trump believed them to be when he asked them to steal an election for him. The case presented to them is a lay-up. There’s no legitimate cause to argue that Trump gets forever immunity for his crimes. All they need to do is put out a one-sentence response upholding the D.C. opinion. That can be done this week. Frankly, that could have been done within minutes of Trump filing his appeal. It’s rare that matters of law are as black-and-white as this, but here we are. If the Supreme Court slow-walks this, the only reason would be to help a man who tried to overthrow the government get away with his crimes.

The Trauma of the Trump Years Is Being Rewritten

The New York Times – Opinion

The Trauma of the Trump Years Is Being Rewritten

By Charles M. Blow – February 14, 2024

Donald Trump with his face partially obscured in a blur of colored light. — Credit…Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Americans rehabilitate ex-presidents all the time.

It was fascinating to see the rebranding of George W. Bush — the man who took us into the disastrous Iraq war and horribly bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina — into a charming amateur artist who played buddies with and passed candy to Michelle Obama.

And it didn’t just happen for him. The Monica Lewinsky scandal faded in our consideration of Bill Clinton. Barack Obama’s reliance on drone strikes and his moniker “deporter in chief” rarely receive mention now.

This is because our political memories aren’t fixed, but are constantly being adjusted. Politicians’ negatives are often diminished and their positives inflated. As Gallup noted in 2013, “Americans tend to be more charitable in their evaluations of past presidents than they are when the presidents are in office.”

Without a doubt, Donald Trump benefits from this phenomenon. The difference is that other presidents’ shortcomings pale in comparison with his and his benefit isn’t passive: He’s seeking the office again and, as part of that, working to rewrite the history of his presidency. His desperate attempts, first to cling to power, then to regain it, include denying the 2020 election result and embracing the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that his denials helped fuel.

His revisionism has worked remarkably well, particularly among Republicans. A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted in December found that Republicans “are now less likely to believe that Jan. 6 participants were ‘mostly violent,’ less likely to believe Trump bears responsibility for the attack and are slightly less likely to view Joe Biden’s election as legitimate” than they were in 2021.

This is one of the truly remarkable aspects of the current presidential cycle: the degree to which our collective memory of Trump’s litany of transgressions has become less of a political problem for him than might otherwise be expected. Even the multiple legal charges he now faces are almost all about things that happened years ago and, to many citizens, involve things that the country should put in the rearview mirror.

Indeed, in the same poll, 43 percent of Americans and 80 percent of 2020 Trump voters said they believed that the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol was an event that the country needed to move on from.

Many Americans experienced the Trump years as traumatic, and one of the most bewildering aspects of this year’s presidential race is the way that so many other Americans are disregarding or downgrading that trauma.

In 2021 a study was published about how we remember political events, specifically examining recollections about two watershed moments, one being Trump’s election in 2016. The study’s lead author, Linda J. Levine, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, wrote, “People exaggerated when remembering how angry they had felt about the political events but underestimated their feelings of happiness and fear.”

This is part of what she describes as “memory reconstruction,” the updating of our memories of the past to reflect our current feelings and beliefs. And what it says to me is that many of us have a clearer recollection of our indignation from 2016 but have developed a hazier recollection of the sense of foreboding that hung in the air during the years that followed.

I’m not sure that people — not just Republicans — are fully remembering what it felt like, just a few years ago, to wake up every morning having to brace themselves before checking the news because they didn’t know what fresh outrage awaited them.

I’m not sure that people are fully remembering the constant chaos or the disorienting feeling of the stream of lies flowing from the Trump White House.

I’m not sure that people are remembering the family separation policy, the “very fine people” refrain or the tossing of rolls of paper towels in Puerto Rico after a hurricane ravaged the island.

Too many people have settled into a hagiographic view of Trump’s presidency, even though you can make a solid case that today’s economy is stronger than the one Trump left behind and that Trump did — and still does — gush over the world’s dictators and agitate America’s allies.

D. Stephen Voss, a political scientist at the University of Kentucky, told me this week that “voters are usually only responding to fairly recent memories and fairly recent messaging.” As he put it, “Candidates can fairly easily put their past behind them.”

This electoral quirk is an outgrowth of human nature. Staying in moments of apprehension is so emotionally expensive and consumes so much energy that we often allow ourselves to grow numb to them or diminish them.

But the threat that Trump poses to our country hasn’t diminished. It has increased. He keeps saying things — he won’t be a dictator “except for Day 1” — that demonstrate he is not only a danger to the country but also to the world order.

And in the end, that is the most important issue in this election, not Biden’s memory or disagreements over his foreign policy or migrants at the border or economic anxiety. You can’t make the country better without saving it first.

Those fighting to save our democracy can never lose sight of that, particularly since many of those supporting Trump now see his multifarious sins through rose-tinted glasses.

Charles M. Blow is an Opinion columnist for The New York Times, writing about national politics, public opinion and social justice, with a focus on racial equality and L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

Ex-F.B.I. Informant Is Charged With Lying Over Bidens’ Role in Ukraine Business

New York Times

Ex-F.B.I. Informant Is Charged With Lying Over Bidens’ Role in Ukraine Business

The informant’s story was part of a series of explosive and unsubstantiated claims by Republicans that the Bidens engaged in potentially criminal activity.

By Glenn Thrush – February 15, 2024

Hunter Biden in a suit and tie appears with others outside. — Hunter Biden outside the U.S. Capitol building in December. An FBI informant has been charged with lying to his handler about ties between Joe Biden and son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company. Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

The special counsel investigating Hunter Biden has charged a former F.B.I. informant with fabricating claims that President Biden and his son sought two $5 million bribes from a Ukrainian energy company, according to an indictment in a California federal court.

The former informant, Alexander Smirnov, 43, was accused of falsely telling the F.B.I. that Hunter Biden, then serving as a paid member on the board of Burisma, demanded the money to protect the company from an investigation by the country’s prosecutor general at the time.

The story Mr. Smirnov told investigators was part of a series of explosive and unsubstantiated claims by Republicans that the Bidens engaged in potentially criminal activity — allegations central to the party’s efforts to impeach the president.

In July, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, released a copy of an F.B.I. record that included the false allegation without naming Mr. Smirnov, or questioning its veracity.

“I’ve been pushing the Justice Department and F.B.I. to provide details on its handling of very significant allegations from a trusted F.B.I. informant implicating then-Vice President Biden in a criminal bribery scheme,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement at the time, praising “heroic whistle-blowers” who brought the document to light.

The claims in the report turned out to be a lie, said the special counsel, David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware.

Mr. Smirnov now faces a two-charge indictment for making false statements and obstructing the government’s long-running investigation of the president’s troubled son. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

Mr. Smirnov is a permanent resident of the United States, according to a senior law enforcement official. He was arrested in Las Vegas on Wednesday after disembarking from an international flight and was expected to appear before a federal judge later Thursday.

Hunter Biden promised to protect the company “through his dad, from all kinds of problems,” Mr. Smirnov falsely claimed to the bureau in 2020, according to Mr. Weiss, the special counsel who has charged the president’s son twice over the past year on tax and gun charges.

Mr. Smirnov, prosecutors working for Mr. Weiss said, was only in contact with Burisma executives in 2017, after Mr. Biden left office — when he “had no ability to influence U.S. policy.”

He is accused of exaggerating his “routine and unextraordinary business contacts with Burisma” into “bribery allegations” against the president, who is identified in the filing as “Public Official 1.”

Glenn Thrush covers the Department of Justice. He joined The Times in 2017 after working for Politico, Newsday, Bloomberg News, The New York Daily News, The Birmingham Post-Herald and City Limits. More about Glenn Thrush

Why 22 Senate Republicans defied Trump and voted for aid to Ukraine

ABC News

Why 22 Senate Republicans defied Trump and voted for aid to Ukraine

Ayesha Ali – February 13, 2024

Senate passes aid bill for Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine

Early Tuesday morning, 22 Senate Republicans defied Donald Trump and voted with Democrats to pass a $95 billion foreign aid package — most if for Ukraine and Israel.

The former president and other Senate Republicans had tried to kill the measure that President Biden has called critical.

He earlier had stopped a version that included border security provisions, wanting to deny Biden a win on immigration and claiming he could get do better if he regains the White House.

Here’s why some of the Republicans who went against Trump said they voted as they did, although few, if any, made much mention of Trump.

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump speaks at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., June 13, 2023. (Andrew Harnik/AP, FILE)

MORE: Senate passes $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, but tough path ahead in House

Strengthening US defense

Several GOP senators noted the supplemental aid package includes $26 billion to help replenish U.S. military stockpiles depleted by ammunition and other equipment and supplies sent to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, according to a bill summary.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement, “The national security supplemental we passed today equips our country with the resources to restore American deterrence and resolve amid rising threats and President Biden’s weakness.”

PHOTO: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.,, left, speaks during a news conference on the Administration's pause on LNG exports, Feb. 8, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington, as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, right, looks on. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP) — PHOTO: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.,, left, speaks during a news conference on the Administration’s pause on LNG exports, Feb. 8, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington, as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, right, looks on. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., also said the bill would revitalize the U.S. defense industry.

“This bill also will help rebuild our defense industrial base, which has significantly diminished in recent years,” he said. “Restoring our military readiness — from artillery to semiconductors — is critical not to promoting war but to deterring conflict.”

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also emphasized U.S. national security concerns.

“My primary obligation as a U.S. senator is protecting America. This national defense legislation counters the Biden administration’s weak defense policy decisions and will save American lives,” he said.

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota justified his vote by saying the House would be able to “take an imperfect bill and make it better.”

Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas echoed Cramer.

“It was still important to advance the process so the House of Representatives can influence these policies and help secure even better outcomes,” he said.

Support for allies

Prior to the vote, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, took to the Senate floor to warn of consequences if Ukraine and Israel were not sent the aid.

“Why am I so focused on this vote? Because I don’t want to be on the pages of history that we will regret,” he said. “If we walk away, you will see the alliance that is supporting Ukraine crumble, you will ultimately see China become emboldened. And I am not going to be on that page of history.”

PHOTO: Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, left and Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, right, walks through the U.S. Capitol, Feb. 7, 2024, in Washington. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, also underscored the necessity of standing by allies, but said the United States can’t ensure global security alone.

“The United States cannot be the policeman of the world, nor can we engage in every conflict, which is why we must support allies who will stand with us in what is a very dangerous time globally,” he said.

Ahead of the Senate vote on the supplemental aid package, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina did mention Trump. He released a statement Monday evening suggesting that the aid to Ukraine and Israel in the package be given as a loan instead, an idea Trump had proposed.

PHOTO: Ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on online child safety on Capitol Hill, Jan. 31, 2024 in Washington. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP) — PHOTO: Ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on online child safety on Capitol Hill, Jan. 31, 2024 in Washington. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

“A loan on friendly terms allows America, who is deeply in debt, a chance to get our money back and changes the paradigm of how we help others,” Graham said. “President Trump is right to insist that we think outside the box.”

Graham, usually a national security hawk who previously had supported aid to Ukraine, voted against it.

The 22 Senate Republicans who voted to pass the aid are: John Boozman, Shelley Moore Capito, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, John Hoeven, John Kennedy, Mitch McConnell, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Risch, Mitt Romney, Mike Rounds, Dan Sullivan, John Thune, Thom Tillis, Roger Wicker, Todd Young.

ABC News’ Allie Pecorin contributed to this report.

Here Are the Republicans Breaking With Their Party to Back Ukraine Aid

The New York Times

Here Are the Republicans Breaking With Their Party to Back Ukraine Aid

Carl Hulse – February 13, 2024

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gives a thumbs up as the Senate votes to pass a long-awaited foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel early Tuesday morning, Feb. 13, 2024. (Anna Rose Layden/The New York Times)

WASHINGTON — Seventeen Senate Republicans have bucked a majority of their party and former President Donald Trump in joining Democrats to push military assistance for Ukraine toward approval in the Senate, highlighting a widening foreign policy divide in the contemporary Republican Party.

The 17 senators, mainly national security hawks who include several military veterans, have provided the votes necessary to overcome multiple filibusters backed by a majority of their colleagues, clearing the way for approval within days of $95 billion in aid to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Pacific region.

“The thread that binds that group together is national security,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who is one of the 17. “America’s national security, the belief that what happens in Ukraine matters to the United States, the belief that what happens in Israel matters and the belief that what happens in the South Pacific matters.”

Backing the funding could draw condemnation from Trump and his allies, a possibility that was most likely a factor in the decision of some to oppose it.

Some Republicans who have balked at the bill have suggested that they could ultimately back the legislation on final passage after trying to use their opposition to win the chance to change it — an effort that has so far not proved successful. But whether more than half of the 49 Republicans will vote for it remains an open question.

Here’s a closer look at the defectors so far, and what is motivating them.

All But Two of the Senate’s Republican Leaders

The group includes the two top Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Thune of South Dakota, as well as two others on the leadership team: Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Two other leaders, Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Steve Daines of Montana, both of whom have endorsed Trump, are opposed.

The sharp split on the funding inside the top echelons of the Senate Republican Conference mirrors a sharp division inside the party, which for much of the post-World War II era has been a strong proponent of exerting American power overseas and standing by U.S. allies. But there is a growing and strong sentiment among Republicans — encouraged by Trump — toward withdrawing from foreign involvement.

McConnell has been among the most vocal proponents of sending aid to Ukraine. He has called Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression an existential issue and argued with increasing fervor in recent days that the United States must not abandon its democratic ally standing up against President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been leading an effort to slow-walk the military assistance measure, on Monday called the idea that bolstering Ukraine was essential to America’s national security “ludicrous.”

“I think sending money to Ukraine actually makes our national security more endangered,” Paul said. “The leadership has come together, but it is the wrong kind of compromise. It is a compromise to loot the Treasury. They are shoveling out borrowed cash.”

Others who voted for the funding include Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, a former top Republican who is interested in rejoining leadership, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the longest-serving Senate Republican.

National Security Leaders and Veterans

Several members of the Armed Services Committee have backed moving ahead with the bill, including Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the senior Republican on the panel, Sens. Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Ernst.

Ernst served overseas as an Iowa National Guard officer, and Sullivan is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. A third Republican veteran who has been a strong backer of the aid, Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, is a former Marine officer.

Democrats have praised the Republicans who have joined them in the Ukraine effort.

“I think they understand the necessity of supporting Ukraine, particularly since this is a contest between a rules-based international order and Russian autocracy,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., chair of the Armed Services Committee. “They also understand that it could involve our service members soon.”

Mainstream Republicans and Appropriators

Members of the Appropriations Committee, including two more-centrist senators — Susan Collins of Maine, the senior Republican on the spending panel, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have also been instrumental in pushing the aid. Other appropriators behind the bill include Moran, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Capito.

The measure has the backing of a handful of others who have been known to break with their party and support bipartisan compromises, including Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee; Bill Cassidy of Louisiana; and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

“I think there is a common understanding that if we fail on this vote, if we don’t support Ukraine — this is not bluster, this is not hyperbole — bad things are going to happen,” Tillis said Monday.

Republican backers of the legislation say they cannot worry about Trump or the potential electoral consequences given the urgency behind the push to restrain Russia and avoid a wider war in Europe or Asia.

“The stakes are high, and we must meet the moment,” Collins said.

As for a potential backlash, Tillis said he was not worried.

“I slept like a baby last night,” he said, referring to his vote Sunday to overcome the filibuster by a majority of his Republican colleagues.

The following is an alphabetical list of the 17 Republicans who voted to advance the bill past its final procedural hurdle on Monday:

— Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia

— Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana

— Sen. Susan Collins of Maine

— Sen. John Cornyn of Texas

— Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa

— Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa

— Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana

— Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

— Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

— Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

— Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota

— Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska

— Sen. John Thune of South Dakota

— Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina

— Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi

— Sen. Todd Young of Indiana

Biden accuses Trump of bowing to Putin by encouraging Russia to invade NATO allies that don’t meet their obligations

CNN

Biden accuses Trump of bowing to Putin by encouraging Russia to invade NATO allies that don’t meet their obligations

Kevin Liptak and Michael Williams – February 13, 2024

President Joe Biden on Tuesday slammed Donald Trump after the former president said he would encourage Russia to invade countries that don’t meet their NATO obligations, saying such comments amount to bowing down to Vladimir Putin.

The remarks – Biden’s latest criticism of Trump from the White House – are some of his harshest criticism of his likely rival on foreign policy to date.

Speaking Saturday at a rally in South Carolina, Trump said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense. Biden said those comments sent a “dangerous and shocking” signal.

“Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that?” Biden asked incredulously from the State Dining Room. “The whole world heard it. The worst thing is he means it.”

Biden began his speech by encouraging the House of Representatives to “immediately” hold a vote on the Senate-passed, $95 billion supplemental aid package that would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and US partners in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

More than $60 billion from the Senate package would have been allocated to Ukraine, as the country prepares to mark the second anniversary of its full-scale invasion by Russia. Previous attempts to pass an aid package – combined with a border security bill – were scuttled after Trump came out in opposition.

Trump’s comment drew immediate consternation, not only from the American foreign policy establishment but from NATO allies, who have watched warily as Russia proceeds with its invasion of Ukraine.

For Biden, who has spent much of his career working on issues related to transatlantic security, the remark was particularly galling. When he heard about the remarks afterward, the president was aghast, according to a person familiar with the matter. He later issued a statement through his campaign decrying the sentiment.

The White House criticized Trump’s comments shortly after they were made.

“Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement on Saturday.

Former President Donald Trump arrives on stage during a Get Out The Vote rally at Coastal Carolina University on February 10 in Conway, South Carolina. - Win McNamee/Getty Images — Former President Donald Trump arrives on stage during a Get Out The Vote rally at Coastal Carolina University on February 10 in Conway, South Carolina. – Win McNamee/Getty Images

But Biden’s criticism of Trump from the White House went a step further. In a speech that mentioned Trump by name at least a half-dozen times, Biden sought to forcefully rebut questions about American commitment to its allies.

“No other president in our history has bowed down to a Russian dictator,” Biden went on. “Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will. For God’s sake, it’s dumb. It’s shameful. It’s dangerous. It’s un-American.”

On Tuesday, Biden spent a significant portion of his speech on Ukraine aid going after Trump for the remark, which he said undercut longstanding US values.

“When America gives its word, it means something. When we make a commitment, we keep it and NATO is a sacred commitment,” Biden said.

“Donald Trump looks at this as if it’s a burden,” he added.

He said Trump viewed the defense alliance as a “protection racket” and didn’t understand its role in protecting freedom and security.

“For Trump, principles never matter. Everything is transactional,” Biden said.

He said American adversaries “all cheered” when they heard Trump’s comments. “I will not walk away. I can’t imagine any other president walking away,” Biden said.