“You are not allowed to give up.”

February 17, 2024

Vladimir Putin killed his chief political opponent on Friday. Alexei Navalny, a Russian hero and patriot, is the latest in a long line of victims of Putin’s murderous regime. Navalny was in prison north of the Artic circle when he allegedly “died suddenly” on a “walk.” Most of Putin’s victims “fall out” of second-floor windows or die from exotic poisons or nerve agents. President Biden said,

Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny's death. What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality. No one should be fooled, not in Russia, not at home, not anywhere in the world.

Of Navalny, Biden said,

He was brave. He was principled. He was dedicated to building a Russia where the rule of law existed and where it applied to everybody.

Putin kills with impunity. Coincidentally, Donald Trump is currently urging the Supreme Court to grant him (and all other US presidents) the power to kill their political opponents with impunity. Even more coincidentally, Trump has not condemned Putin’s assassination of Navalny—leaving Trump alone among US and Western democratic leaders, all of whom condemned Putin for the death of Navalny.

The assassination of Navalny comes as the GOP is under the thrall of Putin. Trump and congressional Republicans are doing Putin’s work by refusing to provide supplemental funding for Ukraine. MAGA poster boy Tucker Carlson provided a platform last week for Putin to spread his lies about Russia’s history and territorial claims—including his claim that Ukraine is “not really a separate country.” Even Putin was derisive of Tucker Carlson’s pathetic interview. See Business Insider, Putin Says He Thought Tucker Carlson Would Ask Tougher Questions.

President Biden also condemned Congress for its inaction on Ukraine in his remarks on the assassination of Navalny. After his formal remarks, a reporter asked President Biden if there was anything the US could do to accelerate the delivery of aid to Ukraine. Biden responded,

No, but it’s about time [Congress] step[s] up, don’t you think? Instead of going on a two-week vacation.”

Two weeks, they’re walking away. Two weeks. What are they thinking? My God, this is bizarre, and it’s just reinforcing all of the concern and almost – I won’t say panic – but real concern about the United States being a reliable ally. This is outrageous.

The heroism of Navalny highlights the cowardice of House Republicans. Mike Johnson is damaging US foreign policy so he does not provoke the ire of Marjorie Taylor Greene. See op-ed by Eric Garcia in The Independent, Navalny’s death has shown Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson up as a coward.

Garcia explains that Mike Johnson did not spend the last two work days on the Senate bill granting aid to Ukraine but instead wasted time on the Mayorkas impeachment:

Johnson did [so] in the service of appeasing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump ally from Georgia, who is also an ardent opponent of funding for Ukraine.

The fact [Johnson] refused to cross the person largely responsible for him being Speaker shows how unserious he is.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has pledged that if aid to Ukraine goes to the floor of the House, she will file a motion to vacate the chair of Johnson. This comes despite the fact that many in Johnson’s conference want to support Ukraine and most Democrats would vote to help pass a bill doing so.

In other words, Mike Johnson is willing to allow Ukraine to fall to Putin because he wants to remain in his job as Speaker of the House—under the thumb of Marjorie Taylor Greene. What a pathetic, cowardly existence.

Against Mike Johnson’s cowardice (emblematic of all congressional Republicans) is the heroism of Alexei Navalny. In anticipation of his own assassination, Navalny left these words to those who remained behind:

If they decided to kill me, then it means we are incredibly strong.

We need to utilize this power to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed . . . . We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing, so don’t be inactive.

You’re not allowed to give up.

We do not need to make Alexei Navalny’s ultimate sacrifice to follow in his footsteps. We just need not to give up—even when the odds against us seem overwhelming. We can do that. We have been doing that.

---

Judge awards civil penalty of more than $350 million against Trump.

Judge Arthur Engoron released his Decision and Order in the civil fraud trial against Trump, his family members, and business organizations. The decision imposed penalties of $354.8 million plus interest against Trump and family members, plus interest. After interest, Trump owes $454 million to the State of New York.

Trump is also prohibited from conducting business in New York for three years and borrowing from New York-chartered banks. His businesses will remain under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor, who will oversee the preparation of financial statements that comply with generally accepted accounting principles.

The decision is another step in a long road to accountability for Trump. Yes, he will appeal, but he will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the existing penalties and interest ($454 million) plus interest that will accrue on appeal.

Trump was unable to come up with a bond to cover E. Jean Carroll’s first judgment against Trump (only $5 million), so he posted cash. That fact suggests Trump will struggle to find an entity to underwrite a bond in the range of half a billion dollars.

Judge Engoron’s decision (here) is formidable, laying out a strong case against Trump. It will likely stand up on appeal. In a key passage, Judge Engoron writes,

Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again.

This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff.

Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" posture that the evidence belies.

For a detailed discussion of the order, see WaPo, Judge orders Trump to pay more than $350 million after civil fraud trial. (Accessible to all.)

I want to focus on one aspect of Trump's defense, which he repeated today after the decision was released. Trump said, “All the loans were repaid. No one was damaged.”

A key aspect of the law that Trump is accused of violating is that it is intended to protect the integrity of financial and business markets by requiring people to conduct their business honestly. Judge Engoron imposed civil penalties, not damages, for lying to participants in the marketplace.

A simple example is this: Suppose someone obtains a home mortgage by lying about having a job that pays $100,000 per year (by forging pay stubs). In fact, the borrower earns $25,000. The borrower gets a loan based on the lie about his income. Because the real-estate market is hot, the borrower sells the property a year later, makes a handsome profit on the increase in value, and repays the bank. No party in that scenario was “damaged.”

But the state has a legitimate interest in imposing fines on people who lie in business transactions even if no one is damaged. Why? Well, let’s change the facts just a bit to see why. Suppose home values fell after the borrower obtained the loan and the borrower was unable to pay the mortgage on $25,000 in salary per year. The bank forecloses on the loan and loses money on the decreased value of the house. The bank would suffer damage in that instance.

New York (and other states) have a legitimate interest in ensuring people are honest in business transactions to protect the integrity of the marketplace in general. Banks take risks in every transaction—so they must be provided accurate information in gauging those risks. That is why Trump's constant claim that “the banks were repaid, no one was damaged” is irrelevant.

Trump lied to get the loans. Those lies harmed the integrity of the marketplace. Judge Engoron punished Trump by imposing civil penalties. The judgment will likely stand up on appeal.

But . . . if you are hoping that the judgment will bankrupt Trump, it will not. The judgment poses a cash flow and temporary liquidity problem for Trump that he can weather by selling assets. Moreover, yesterday, the SEC gave approval for Trump's “Truth Social” platform to merge into a publicly traded shell company.

Why does that matter? The “special interest acquisition company” (“SPAC”) can raise money in public stock exchanges by offering securities to the public. See The Washington Post, Trump Media merger wins SEC approval, a windfall for the former president - The Washington Post

Per the Washington Post,

The approval is a victory for Trump, who will hold more than 78 million shares in the post-merger company, a filing shows — a stake that, at current prices, would be worth nearly $4 billion.

Owning stock in Truth Social that is “worth” $4 billion is not the same as having $4 billion in cash, but it provides a source of assets (and eventual liquidity) for Trump that can offset the penalty imposed in Judge Engoron’s decision.

All of this leads to the most important point: Judge Engoron’s decision is important because it brands Trump as a habitual and serial fraudster who cannot be trusted to conduct business in the great State of New York. That is another divot in his candidacy and reputation.

While we can’t wait for Trump to defeat himself, we should recognize that the Republican nominee has plenty of problems that are unique, serious, and disqualifying. So, don’t sit around worrying that our candidate has some issues, too. Any candidate will have issues—but none as bad as Trump's.

---

A comment on the attacks on Fani Willis.

The hearing on the motion to disqualify Fani Willis has been wild, to say the least. Yesterday, I gave a relatively neutral report on what happened and failed to address the egregious, sexist, and racist attacks on Fani Willis. A reader called me on that fact, so I will address it tonight.

First, as an explanation and not an excuse, I gave a relatively bland description of what happened yesterday, urging people to wait for the evidentiary hearing to be completed because my opinion of the entire situation is at odds with that of most of my readers. Readers are angry at Fani Willis and want her to resign.

I disagree. I believe Willis has been unfairly targeted as part of a political hit job based on racist and sexist tropes. But when I have expressed that opinion in earlier newsletters, I receive a LOT of angry emails from readers who blame Fani Willis for having a romantic relationship with someone who effectively worked for her in the RICO prosecution.

So, I avoided the prospect of another round of angry emails by sticking with a high-level narrative. That was a mistake. Shame on me. Let me try again with a different approach.

Be angry with Fani Willis if that is how you feel. I understand why people are disappointed. Usually, the emails include phrases like, “What was she thinking?” and “So much was at stake.” Point taken. People are so anxious to see Trump convicted that they are hyper-critical of Willis’s personal choices and unwilling to forgive her, conflating the legal issue of disqualification with their personal disappointment in Willis’s choices. I get it.

But what happened in the courtroom was unforgivable. It was a degrading and humiliating attack that Judge McAfee should have never permitted. Almost none of the “evidence” smearing Willis and prying into her sex life was relevant to the question of conflict of interest—the only issue that matters.

The examination by the lawyers trying to disqualify Willis was based on innuendo, half-truths, omissions, witnesses of dubious credibility, and deliberate race-baiting. At one point, when Willis testified that she reimbursed Nathan Wade in cash for dinners, a white male defense lawyer guffawed so loudly that Judge McAfee told him he would need to leave the courtroom if it happened again.

The white male lawyer was exhibiting monumental ignorance and white privilege by not understanding the challenges and discrimination faced by Blacks—men and women—who walk into white establishments fearful that their credit cards will be refused or that they will be asked to “pay in advance” before receiving their meals.

For women, as Fani Willis explained, they may be concerned that their date will walk out, leaving them stuck with a bill. Having cash is a matter of self-preservation and survival, but the white lawyers in the courtroom turned that survival instinct into something sinister. Until Fani Willis explained the context.

Fani Willis’s testimony was a remarkable event that touched a nerve with women, especially Black women, across America. She spoke for them and to them. Whatever happens on the motion to disqualify, Fani Willis’s testimony will be viewed as a pivotal event in the campaign—because it showed both how low Trump's minions will stoop in attacking Black women and how strong Black women are when under attack.

The media was filled with criticisms of Fani Willis’s testimony—almost all from white males—chastising her for being “belligerent” and not “answering the questions.” My god! Trump's surrogates were prying into her sex life in a nationally televised hearing that should have never been allowed, and commentators are criticizing her for not being polite and obedient! Who among us would be under such circumstances?

Can the critics not hear themselves? Do they not understand that anyone would have felt the same? The type of questioning allowed by Judge McAfee is exactly why most states have outlawed “attack the victim” examinations in rape cases.

Telling Fani Willis (effectively) to “sit down and shut up” is a mistake. And it was a degrading humiliation that would have never been permitted against someone who wasn’t a Black woman in Georgia.

There is no legal basis for Fani Willis’s disqualification, and it is wrong to suggest that she resign to make things easier or enhance the likelihood of convicting Trump. His hitmen will attack whoever takes over the prosecution. Fani Willis is the current target—and one who is strong enough to stand up to the abuse. It will be difficult to find another prosecutor who can fill her shoes.

I understand that most readers are going to disagree with my views—just as most media outlets do. But those media outlets are making a mistake. What happened in the hearing before Judge McAfee was important, consequential, and enduring—because Fani Willis spoke for women who form the base of the Democratic Party. Democrats ignore what Fani Willis had to say at their peril. Indeed, Democrats should be rushing to defend Fani Willis against the ugly attacks unleashed by Trump's surrogates. I apologize for being late to her defense.

For more on this subject, read Lucian Truscott’s excellent essay, It's a Black thing - by Lucian K. Truscott IV (substack.com).

---

Democrats are not going to replace Joe Biden as the nominee.

I have received a rash of emails this week from readers inquiring about suggestions by commentators that Democrats will or should replace Joe Biden as the nominee. One telling of that theory is that Biden should run through the primary season until the convention, at which point he should drop out in favor of a younger, perfect, mythical candidate who does not exist.

That theory undermines Joe Biden and is insulting to hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers working their tails off to elect Biden. It treats their tremendous efforts as play-acting, as a chip in an imaginary poker game controlled by party bosses that do not exist. Worst of all, it suggests a lack of confidence in Joe Biden that hurts his candidacy.

For those of you who entertain this fantasy—or as many readers put it, think that it is “an interesting idea”—I urge you to read Josh Marshall’s article in Talking Points Memo, Glutton for Punishment: Let’s Look at Some Poll Numbers. Marshall notes that pollsters are asking about “replacement” candidates for Biden to run against Trump.

The upshot: Joe Biden is the strongest candidate Democrats have—by far. Substituting in another candidate builds in a ten-point deficit at the outset that must be overcome in three months. Replacing Joe Biden is an unrealistic fantasy that would damage Democratic prospects for retaining the presidency.

Joe Biden is a strong candidate. He has a terrific record of accomplishments. He deserves our unqualified support.

---

Concluding Thoughts.

The stakes are high. Navalny. Putin. Ukraine. Government shutdown. Reproductive liberty. LGBTQ dignity. Voting rights. The climate. Health care. Stability. NATO. The border.

Dictator for a day. Coup plotter. Insurrectionist. Rapist. Fraudster. Useful idiot.

Democracy. Decency. Liberty. Biden.

Talk to you on Monday!