Brooks and Capehart on death of Putin critic Navalny and Trump’s latest legal blow

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the death of outspoken Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, a main source for the Republicans’ Biden impeachment case getting indicted for lying, plus a busy week of Trump-related court news in New York and Georgia.
Geoff Bennett:
From the reported death of outspoken Putin critic Alexei Navalny to Donald Trump’s latest legal blow, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
President Biden said today there’s no doubt that Vladimir Putin’s government is behind the death of the outspoken dissident Alexei Navalny. I want to start with your reaction and your assessment of the implications.
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, it was shocking, just because of who Navalny was, in terms of opposition, a well-known opponent of Vladimir Putin, but also because of its timing, to my mind.
The Munich Security Conference is happening right now. It is the most important gathering of national security and foreign policy leaders from around the world. And the announcement of Navalny’s death comes — came a few hours before Vice President Harris was supposed to speak, which was known.
Mrs. Navalny was there to do a panel with Secretary — former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This comes after we have been listening to Donald Trump saying, if NATO doesn’t pay its bills, well, then Russia can — quote — “do whatever the hell they want.”
And so this sends an — I think, an incredibly chilling message, chilling message to the world that Vladimir Putin, for lots of reasons, probably feels very, very emboldened. And when there’s a major candidate running for president of the United States saying the things that he’s saying, Putin probably feels confident that, maybe come November, he will have a friend in the White House and he can do whatever the hell he wants.
Geoff Bennett:
What about that, David?
Because we heard Andrew Weiss tell Amna earlier in the program tonight that it suggests that the U.S. will be locked into confrontation with Russia for years to come. What does this suggest about Vladimir Putin’s grip on power?
David Brooks:
Well, he’s an expansionist, and he’s an expansionist and authoritarian.
From Jimmy Carter until about George W. Bush, American foreign policy thought it was very important to champion democracy. And after Iraq, we have sort of stopped. And the last three presidents have really put that on the back burner.
But the democrats in every authoritarian country in the world, of whom Navalny is the most courageous example, they haven’t stopped. They still believe in democracy. And it’s a reminder to me that we should — we’re not going to invade countries, but we should be on the right side of history. And we should be using whatever realm we have to put democracy in motion back again toward the center of American foreign policy.
As for Putin, he is what he says he is. He wants to be Catherine the Great. He wants to have an expansion of power. Ukraine is a start. The Poles are not worried for — they’re worried for a reason.
And, in retrospect — and I didn’t think this at the time, but, in retrospect, it really looks terrible that we did not give the Ukrainians every weapon system we ended up giving them eventually when they — back when they had the momentum.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, right, because you can add this news to what we learned this past week, that Russia is reportedly developing space-based capability to take out satellites with a nuclear weapon.
And the question is, how will the U.S. respond? How will this affect the ongoing debate on the Hill about Ukraine, do you think?
Jonathan Capehart:
Deep in my heart, Geoff, I hope it would change some hearts and minds, that it would change the political dynamic.
But I don’t see it changing anything, because the characters who are up there are unmoved by facts. They’re unmoved by America’s role in the world. They’re unmoved by what it means and why it’s imperative that the United States follow its — fulfill its commitments, but also fulfill its commitments to Ukraine.
And, fine, maybe they don’t care because President Biden is the one who says that what’s happening in Ukraine is a war between democracy and autocracy, but, at some point, they’re going to be faced with the realization that, if Ukraine falls, then they’re going to be talking about Poland or Estonia or the other Baltic states.
So I just — I would hope that the idea of a nuclear space weapon would turn them around, but not with these folks.
Geoff Bennett:
Do you think this will help focus the minds of members of Congress?
David Brooks:
Yes, I’m actually impressed by how much action there is on Capitol Hill. Last week, it looked like they were just tossing it all away.
But if you look at Republicans in the House now, there are two different coalitions. They have got two different sort of approaches. One is a skinnier bill, where it wouldn’t be $90 or $80 billion. It would be $60 billion. It would just be the military assistance without some humanitarian.
There’s another section who says if we can get some concessions from Democrats on immigration to let people remain in Mexico while they’re awaiting their asylum claims, then we will give them the whole foreign aid package.
So there’s still a lot of momentum, and that didn’t need to happen. So I’m, frankly, a little more optimistic than I was before.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, meantime, special counsel David Weiss charged a former FBI informant, Alexander Smirnov, with lying about President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
And it undercuts a major aspect of Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden. What do you see as the political fallout, Jonathan?
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
I mean, in a perfect world, Chairman Comer would say, OK, we’re done here. Our chief person, who we have been resting everything on, caught lying to the FBI, we’re done. We’re going to go focus on some other things.
But when you ignore the facts and you’re devoid of shame, well, you can do whatever you want. And what we’re hearing from Chairman Comer is, no big deal. We’re just going to — we’re going to forge ahead.
So, again, I guess I’m the dour one at this table when it comes to — when it comes to Congress, and particularly the Republican majority. But I don’t think it’s going to — it might change the conversation that — around this table, but it’s not going to change anything in terms of the course of action that’s already under way on the Hill.
Geoff Bennett:
Is your view equally as dour?
David Brooks:
No.
(Laughter)
(Crosstalk)
David Brooks:
… today.
I think what we have seen with the Smirnov case, where it was clear he was lying, and then you had the True the Vote people, who were claiming there was election fraud in Georgia, what you’re seeing is that, for mysterious reasons, the Bush — the Trump administration attracted a lot of con artists. And those con artists are now running up against the legal system.
And the legal system doesn’t work by epistemic nonsense. You actually have to have evidence. You have to make claims. The claims are tested. And so we’re seeing a lot of people in Trump world running against that and being blown away by the legal system.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, a judge, as we heard William Brangham report earlier in this broadcast, has ordered former President Donald Trump and his companies to pay more than $350 million in the civil fraud case.
Obviously, it’s a major financial blow, but it’s also a major blow to his persona, having built his brand on being a successful businessman and using that to leverage his way into the White House.
Jonathan Capehart:
Yes.
And what he’s doing now is, as a result of all of these court cases, he’s still making money off it. Every time there’s a ruling or any kind of judgment against him, he — there goes a fund-raising e-mail asking people for money to his presidential campaign, which I can’t remember if it’s his daughter-in-law who’s now the incoming vice chair of the RNC, who says, we’re going to use every dollar that we have in defending Donald Trump.
Geoff Bennett:
Lara Trump.
Jonathan Capehart:
Yes, Lara Trump, his daughter-in-law.
This — you hit on the key thing, Geoff, that this judgment today hits at his idea of himself, a very wealthy man. And it is why he went to all of those hearings when he didn’t need to be there, because that, for him, is the existential threat.
And now we’re about to find out if he does indeed have nearly a half-million dollars to put up to fulfill this judgment. And then, when you add on the 83-point-something-million-dollar judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case, we’re talking more than a half-billion dollars that he is liable for.
We’re about to find out whether he actually has the money.
Geoff Bennett:
A half-billion dollars, I mean, that is real money. How do you see this?
David Brooks:
For some people.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
Yes.
No, Michael Cohen, the former Trump aide who turned, said this was the case that really got under his skin, that sent him berserk and haywire, because it does go to his core. It shows — and I think people can understand this. The guy had three sets of books. He had the bankers books, where he inflated his assets. He had the IRS books, where he deflated his assets.
And then, theoretically, he must have had the real books. And so people can understand that. That’s just fraud. That’s just being a con artist. And if he has to pay the money, I think that’s going to be bad.
He said he has $400 million, roughly. He said that. We can expect that he’s inflated that number. And so if he can’t come with the money, in this case, they start seizing assets. Imagine what that does to the Trump psychology.
And then you get the part that’s already in the judgment, which is that he can’t be a businessman in New York state for three years.
(Crosstalk)
David Brooks:
And so this is the family business. And the family’s basically got kicked out of the family business.
All these, to me, are psychologically derailing things for Donald Trump. And so I would expect we’re going to have some sort of county reaction. And I don’t know what it’s going to look like, but I suspect it’ll be there.
Geoff Bennett:
And on top of that, you have a judge rejecting his bid to toss the hush money payment case, which is expected to start next month. That was said to be the weakest of all the cases. But looking at the totality of it, what do you think the net effect of all this is?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, he’s going to trial. He’s going to be in a courtroom.
And we will go from the theoretical to the real. And I’m looking forward to it, because the dude needs to be held accountable in a court of law.
Geoff Bennett:
All right, Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, have a good weekend. Good to see you.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, Geoff.