Ben Wittes on Alexei Navalny's Death Tucker Carlson's Grotesque Putin Propaganda and GOP Moral Collapse

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Charlie Kirk Questions Why Russia Is Our Enemy on the Thousandth Day of Unnecessary War

Charlie Kirk Questions Why Russia Is Our Enemy on the Thousandth Day of Unnecessary War

15:08

Charlie Kirk and David Sacks Expose Biden Administration's Ukraine Obsession Over American Priorities

Charlie Kirk and David Sacks Expose Biden Administration's Ukraine Obsession Over American Priorities

5:25

Charlie Kirk Faces Cambridge Students on Trump Foreign Policy and Middle East Conflicts

Charlie Kirk Faces Cambridge Students on Trump Foreign Policy and Middle East Conflicts

32:01

Ben Wittes on Alexei Navalny's Death Tucker Carlson's Grotesque Putin Propaganda and GOP Moral Collapse

Ben Wittes joins Tim Miller to discuss the reported death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote Arctic penal colony, presumably murdered by Vladimir Putin. Wittes refuses to accept passive language around Navalny's death and insists on calling it what it is: assassination. The conversation turns to Tucker Carlson's propaganda tour in Russia, his grocery store theater, and his astonishing claim that "leadership requires killing people." Wittes and Miller examine the moral rot spreading through the Republican Party, from Tucker's Putin cheerleading to members of Congress comparing Trump's legal troubles to Navalny's murder. They also cover updates on the fabricated Biden-Burisma allegations and the Fani Willis hearing in Georgia. This is a searing discussion about courage, cowardice, and what America once stood for to dissidents around the world.

Categories: Liberal Opinions
February 16, 2024

The Reported Death of Alexei Navalny

Ben Wittes begins by refusing to accept the Russian government's narrative at face value. While Russian state media claims Navalny collapsed and died during a walk at the polar wolf Arctic penal colony where he was serving a three-decade sentence, Wittes insists on waiting for confirmation from Navalny's own organization before accepting it as fact. As a matter of principle, he does not accept any factual representations from the Russian government.

Assuming the reports are true, Wittes is adamant about the language used to describe what happened. "We should not say that he collapsed and died on a walk at a penal colony," Wittes states. "He was murdered by Vladimir Putin." At minimum, Putin murdered him by placing him in conditions where death was highly probable. Wittes notes the persistent allegations that Navalny was being poisoned or mistreated, and argues against using passive voice or making Navalny the subject rather than the object of the sentence.

Navalny, other than Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was Vladimir Putin's single most important enemy in the world. He voluntarily returned to Russia after having been poisoned with Novichok, even revealing publicly how the poisoning was carried out. His imprisonment and disappearance was an effort to kill him and remove him from Russian politics, and the West should not let Putin get away with sanitizing the cause of death.

Navalny's wife Yulia, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, stated that if the reports are true, she wants Putin, his entourage, his friends, and his government to know they will be held responsible for what they have done to her country, her family, and her husband, and that day will come very soon.

Navalny's Unique Position in Russian Opposition

Wittes emphasizes that if true, Navalny's death represents a devastating blow to Russian opposition movements. The Russian opposition has long struggled with co-opted figures, ultra-nationalists, and straightforward people whom Putin has simply murdered, most famously Boris Nemtsov. While you can kill a person but not kill a dream, Wittes notes, killing enough people makes a pretty significant impact on the dream.

Navalny was special because he had an ability to communicate not just with elite Russian liberals, but with ordinary Russians angry about government corruption and oligarchs amassing fortunes while building palaces. He was exceptionally talented at addressing issues Russians actually cared about. His loss represents a significant blow to the idea of a genuinely democratic opposition in Russia that does not aspire to imperial conquest of half of Europe.

Wittes presents a partial list of Putin critics and opponents who have mysteriously died or been targeted: Navalny twice, Magnitsky, Khangoshvili shot in Berlin in 2019, Skripal poisoned in 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain in 2018, and Nemtsov in 2015. But Navalny stands apart. He is certainly the most important since Nemtsov and may be more important. Unlike many obscure victims, Navalny was not obscure in the West. Just weeks before, when he disappeared in prison and concerns grew that he was dead, the hashtag where is Navalny trended globally, and Secretary of State Blinken spoke about it publicly before the Russians released proof of life.

What Can the United States Do?

Wittes acknowledges there is limited direct action the United States can take. This is internal to Russia, literally happening in a penal colony in the deepest reaches of Siberia. The U.S. has already imposed significant pressure on Russia due to Ukraine, freezing assets and seizing yachts. There are not many more levers to pull that have not already been used.

What can be done is talking about it extensively. Wittes plans to project the word "murderers" on the Russian Embassy. At both senior government levels and individual levels, people should discuss this case, play clips of Navalny, and share the videos he made. These are astonishing pieces of investigative work, though many are in Russian because Russians were the intended audience. People should learn about what Navalny and his organization accomplished and remember it the next time Tucker Carlson suggests we should listen to Putin.

In a sane world, if Republicans were holding up Ukraine aid and Putin murdered his most important critic, cooler heads would prevail and the Speaker would call an immediate vote for unconditional Ukraine aid so Putin does not get the windfall of congressional inaction on top of murdering his chief critic. But this is not an entirely sane world. For many like Mike Johnson and Tucker Carlson, this might just show the need for more dialogue with Putin. Some might even suggest Putin only killed Navalny because the West has not been nice enough to him.

Wittes worries people will cram the news into their own preconceptions. Nevertheless, this should concentrate minds. Putin is murderous at the national level, personal level, and state institutional level. The United States has to be more like Adam Kinzinger than Mike Johnson about this and put domestic considerations aside to pass the Ukraine supplemental.

Tucker Carlson's Grotesque Propaganda

During the conversation, Tucker Carlson appears live at the World Government Summit 2024. When challenged about not asking Putin about freedom of speech in Russia, Navalny, assassinations, or restrictions on opposition in coming elections, Carlson responds with a stunning statement: "Every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people. Sorry, it's why I wouldn't want to be a leader."

Carlson continues that press restriction is universal, claiming there is more censorship in Russia than the United States but a great deal in the United States. He says people can decide what countries or systems they think are better, but he just wanted to know what Putin thinks.

Wittes states bluntly: "There is nothing we can do about the Tuckers of the world. There is something we can do about the Mike Johnsons of the world." That involves a maximum pressure campaign to get Johnson to hold a vote on Ukraine aid, and the Navalny story, if true, should work as a significant weapon in that effort. He is confident Navalny would want that as well. In the longer term, these people who do not understand the need to stand up to Vladimir Putin need to be removed from power through electoral means.

The exchange reminds Miller of Trump's 2016 interview with Bill O'Reilly, when O'Reilly asked about Putin's assassinations and Trump responded, "You think our country's so innocent? We've got a lot of killers." This mindset has infected a huge portion of the Republican Party. The party that once felt America was the hope of the world now says, "You think we're so innocent? Everybody's a killer."

The GOP's Moral Collapse and Grotesque Comparisons

The moral equivalence has spread shockingly far. Dinesh D'Souza claims Trump is Navalny and Biden is Putin, that Trump is being persecuted. Even Lee Zeldin, known as a moderate Republican, tweets: "As the world reflects on the murder of Alexei Navalny at the hands of Putin, it's worth remembering the Democrats are actively doing Biden's bidding as they also try to imprison his chief political opponent Donald Trump."

Wittes addresses this disgusting moral equivalence by pointing to the stark differences between the Russian and American justice systems. If you can watch proceedings against Navalny and proceedings against Trump and see them as equivalent, you fundamentally misunderstand both systems. The Russian justice system is an instrument of repressive state power and nothing more. The American justice system has problems, but Trump is getting four fair trials in four different jurisdictions supervised by four different judges, state and federal. He will have ample opportunity to prove himself innocent of each of the 91 felony counts. He may not even be convicted of all of them. The burden is actually on the prosecution.

Part of the answer lies in letting the system play out so people can evaluate whether the results have integrity. The harder challenge is the political system. How do you convince a political culture that it has integrity and that its systems have integrity in the face of a relentless multi-year campaign of delegitimization? How do you keep people confident that the U.S. system and Russian system are not the same, that Joe Biden is not out murdering political opponents? Biden is supposed to be too old and senile to be killing people, and his own son is being investigated by the DOJ.

Miller rewatched the Sarah Palin Katie Couric interview and notes that as bad as Palin was, her talking points were much more mainstream. She talked about Reagan and the shining city on a hill, the threat from Putin, worries about climate change. Fast forward to this week and Sarah Palin posts a meme with Tucker and Putin's faces superimposed on two people smiling over a grave marked "the media and the Democrats." This woman who was on a vice presidential ticket is cheerleading the idea that Putin is murdering journalists, and days later he allegedly murders the opposition political leader.

Did Putin Time Navalny's Death Around Tucker's Visit?

Wittes raises a causal question about Tucker's trip. If you are Vladimir Putin and you have decided to kill Navalny at the most opportune moment, you want to time it because there will be backlash. Congress has stalled on Ukraine aid for four months, creating a perception that the American political system is weakening in its resolve to confront Russia. Then one of the most prominent Russia apologists in the United States, second only to or perhaps even ahead of Donald Trump, shows up in Moscow to kiss Putin's behind. Did Putin take the current GOP posture, Tucker's visit, Sarah Palin's activities, and everything together as a sign this is a good moment?

When you act like shills for Putin, he takes it as a signal. When you stand up to him, he takes that as a signal. When you pucker your lips and kiss his behind, he takes that as a signal. He is getting a lot of good signals right now.

Miller shares his disgust at Tucker's grocery store video, where Tucker claims that seeing Russian grocery prices and how people live will "radicalize you against our leaders." This is in a country where 25% of the population does not have running water. People have been impressed with Moscow Metro stations since the Stalin era while missing things like the Ukrainian famine because they were impressed with subway stations. Tucker should drive 50 or 100 miles out of Moscow and see what he thinks then.

But Miller and Wittes agree Tucker is not actually falling for anything. Tucker is a very smart person, evident in his writing and in interviews that were not like his Putin interview. He is a malevolent person who has decided, whether out of grievance toward fellow Americans, hatred that he does not get the treatment among American elites he wishes, desire for money or fame, trolling, or nihilism, to become the number one propagandist for a homicidal maniac who just murdered his political opponent, is kidnapping children, and has invaded another country. The lack of rage and disgust among Republican elites and Tucker's friends and allies is most disheartening.

Explaining America's Betrayal to Ukrainians

Wittes spends significant time with actual Ukrainians and increasingly has to explain his country's behavior to them. They are not like Tucker and Trump. They actually believe in America in an innocent way as the people who confronted the Soviet Union, organized NATO, represent democracy and relatively non-corrupt capitalism, and are the shield of the democratic world. Try explaining Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump and why Trump hates Ukraine to a table full of Ukrainians. It has something to do with Burisma and personal pettiness while they are trying to keep their country independent, get 20,000 kidnapped children back, and save as many lives as possible. It is enraging when you have had that conversation for the 50th time. Half the country's behavior, or 30%, is inexcusable.

Miller reflects that the inverse was once true and one of the most inspiring things. Mark Salter, McCain's speechwriter, would tell stories of traveling with McCain all over the world. The 22-year-old Ukrainians and Georgians in countries with their own autocrats knew the McCain brand, the American brand. It meant something. It meant they will be on our side. Now these people have to feel like a big portion of the country is on the side of the murderer and the despot.

Alexander Smirnov Charged with Fabricating Biden-Burisma Claims

In Trump trial updates, Trump-appointed special counsel David Weiss charged Alexander Smirnov, age 43, with lying to the FBI and creating false records. He was arrested at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. Smirnov is charged with fabricating the notion that he discussed Burisma business dealings with Hunter and Joe Biden when Biden was vice president. There was evidence conversations happened when Biden was a private citizen during the Trump presidency, but Smirnov fabricated to investigators that conversations occurred when Biden was vice president, an obviously significant difference. This claim was mentioned on the Hannity Show 82 times and Smirnov was a star witness for House Oversight Committee investigations.

Wittes points out the prosecutor bringing the case is the same prosecutor prosecuting Hunter Biden, special counsel David Weiss. Someone trying to make a case against Biden, presented with a witness claiming a big bribe demand involving Hunter and Joe Biden, turned around and prosecuted the witness. That gives an idea of how credible the story was.

There are two sides to the Hunter Biden story. One is that Hunter was an addict who engaged in shady behavior, traded on his father's name, and got into legal trouble. The second aspect was that this was somehow a larger story about Joe Biden than Hunter Biden. The different elements of that story have all turned out to be false. It does not stop House Oversight from talking about the Biden crime family, but no component ends up being true for the simple reason that Joe Biden is not corrupt. Whatever else he is—old, what he is—he appears to have mishandled classified information but is not a corrupt guy taking bribes. They get excited about people with stories to tell who turn out to be charlatans or do not tell the stories claimed. This consistent pattern should make people careful with the Jim Jordans and James Comers trying to make Hunter Biden about Joe Biden. The Burisma conspiracy theory was obvious from the start.

Fani Willis Takes the Stand

Wittes was glued to the Fani Willis hearing, calling it better television than Court TV at its best during the O.J. trial. Fani Willis has a problem but Wittes believes she solved most of it herself. She had a relationship with Nathan Wade, whom she hired as special prosecutor in the Trump Georgia case. The issue is whether there is a conflict of interest from their financial arrangements through the affair.

Wade took the stand and was completely incredible in Wittes's assessment. He claimed they had gone on vacations together but she paid him back for everything in cash. The court heard testimony from a former friend of Willis, whose apartment she had taken over, claiming Wade and Willis had been dating much earlier than they acknowledged. The significance is that it is much worse if she hired someone she was sleeping with than if they started a romantic relationship after a professional relationship began.

Things looked bad for Willis around 2 p.m., then she charged into the courtroom and demanded to testify. Wittes has never seen someone take over a courtroom like she did. She talked about why she always keeps cash around her apartment and was as compelling as Wade was evasive. By the end of the day, she had saved the situation. Wittes believes there is no basis to disqualify her after both sworn testimonies, though the hearing continued the next day. He thinks this will end up being a tempest in a teapot, though an entertaining one with elements of Perry Mason, General Hospital, and House of Cards.

If Willis had consulted Wittes asking if she should have an affair with the special prosecutor and reimburse him for joint travel with wads of cash, he would have said no part of that sounds like a good plan. It would come out, she would get beaten up over it, there would be litigation, and it would let Trump change the subject. But she did not consult him, nor did Wade ask how to answer his divorce interrogatories. Nobody consulted Wittes on this, and he would have suggested they handle it differently. But that is not the question. The question is whether she will be disqualified from the case and whether Trump will reap a windfall. Wittes believes the answer is no.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!