Trump Has Finally Spoken on Navalny’s Death. You’ll Wish He Hadn’t.

Donald Trump decided to weigh in on Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s mysterious death, taking to Truth Social to memorialize … himself?

“The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country,” Trump posted to Truth Social on Monday, three days after Navalny’s death was first reported. “It is a slow, steady progression, with CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction. Open Borders, Rigged Elections, and Grossly Unfair Courtroom Decisions are DESTROYING AMERICA. WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION! MAGA2024.”

Somehow, in his chaos of word vomit, Trump omitted a key figure at the center of the Russian political dissenter’s curious disappearance: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After Tucker Carlson’s paltry Putin interview, Trump’s comments are yet another example of a startling shift for far-right members of the conservative party, which somehow straddles the razor wire between condemning former leaders of the Soviet Union while kowtowing to the proto-dictatorship that exists under Putin in modern Russia.

Hours later, Trump continued to make the moment about himself, deriding the nearly $355 million judgment he received on Friday for committing real estate–related bank fraud in New York.

“ALL POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS OF YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT, ME, MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote. “THIS IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STOPPED. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY FAKE PROSECUTIONS BEFORE THE ELECTION. THIS IS COMMUNISM, AND A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. OUR COUNTRY WILL NOT STAND FOR IT. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

In another post, Trump likened the ruling—which he has just 30 days to come up with the money to appeal—to a “Stalinist nightmare.”

Representative Lauren Boebert is struggling to gain traction in her new district’s primary election, as nearly every Republican voter and lawmaker seems to loathe her intensely.

Boebert, who currently represents Colorado’s 3rd district, announced in December that she would run for election in the 4th district in 2024, instead. But if she expected to cruise to victory in the Republican stronghold, then she couldn’t have been more wrong.

At a recent event in Elbert County, southeast of Denver, Republican voters were deeply skeptical of Boebert’s candidacy, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. While some people said they still supported Boebert, others said they had grown tired of all the drama she courts.

“I don’t appreciate, as a Christian, people saying they’re Christian to get your vote and then turning out to be a lowlife, and now I just kind of think of her as a lowlife,” Judy Scofield, a retired university employee, told the Journal.

Many people highlighted the fact that Boebert had switched districts, making them trust her less.

“On Facebook, she’s not been well received by Republicans,” said GOP voter Tammi Flemming. “It’s the shenanigans and the drama and moving districts.”

Retired medical contractor Chris Ware was more blunt: “I will not vote for her. Period. She’s not one of us,” he said.

Boebert decided to switch districts after she was reelected in 2022 by such a narrow margin that the election nearly went to a recount. Her public image has taken a massive battering in recent months, as well, after she and a date received national backlash when they were caught on security cameras talking, using their phones, vaping, and groping each other while seeing a performance of Beetlejuice.

Her fellow primary competitors have continually accused her of carpetbagging, and the Elbert County event was no different. “You don’t need someone who’s going to go from district to district because they can’t win,” Weld County Councilman Trent Leisy told the crowd.

Boebert comes to the 11-person race with $1.3 million in campaign funds and plenty of name recognition, which could help her stand out from the crowd. But that fame has yet to help her out. During the first primary debate in January, Boebert ranked fifth out of eight candidates in an informal straw poll. While on stage, none of her opponents said they would support her if they ended up dropping out.

“The idea that because [the district is] a Republican stronghold, that they’re going to nominate a fringe conservative like a Boebert in the primary is a wrong notion—this thing is a horse race,” Republican strategist Josh Penry told the Journal.

A new ruling out of Alabama may spell the beginning of the end of the third-party fertility industry—and its reasoning partially relies on a verse from the Bible.

On Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children. 

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their “embryonic children” had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them.

In a 7–2 decision, Alabama’s highest court ruled that the clinic had been negligent, allowing the parents to proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also ruled that it is “the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life,” referring to the Alabama Constitution’s Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018.

“Here, the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified,” wrote Alabama Supreme Court Associate Justice Jay Mitchell in the majority’s opinion. “It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding ‘unborn life’ from legal protection.”

But the opinion also quotes the Bible as reasoning for functionally killing IVF access within the aggressively pro-life state, turning to an eyebrow-raising verse from Jeremiah 1:5 for guidance before deciding to make it harder for Alabamans to have a family.

“We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV 1982),” the opinion read.

It’s a devastating hit to the third-party fertility industry, which is comprised of large networks of agencies, clinics, and egg banks around the nation.

“Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling is a terrifying development for the 1 in 6 people impacted by infertility who need in-vitro fertilization to build their families,” said Barb Collura, president and CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association. “This anti-family ruling will likely have devastating consequences, including impacting the standard of care provided by the state’s five fertility clinics. This new legal framework may make it impossible to offer services like IVF, a standard medical treatment for infertility. It also remains unclear what this decision means for families who currently have embryos stored at these clinics.”

This article has been updated.

Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Tony Evers on Monday signed new legislative maps into law, which could help Democrats retake the state legislature in the fall.

The new maps, which go into effect immediately, will replace ones that were widely recognized as some of the most gerrymandered in the country. Despite Democrats winning 14 of the last 17 statewide elections, Republicans have carried the majority of the districts—and thus controlled the state legislature—for the past decade.

“This is an important day and historic day for our state and for every person who calls Wisconsin home,” Evers said before signing the maps into law. “This will be the first time in over 50 years that Wisconsin will have fair legislative maps enacted through the legislative process rather than through the courts.”

“When I promised I wanted fair maps, not maps that are better for one party or the other, including my own, I damn well meant it,” he said. “Wisconsin is not a red state. It is not a blue state. Wisconsin is a purple state, and I believe our maps should reflect that basic fact.”

“The people should get to choose their elected officials, not the other way around.”

State Democrats have tried to challenge the legislative maps for more than a decade, but they hadn’t been successful until Wisconsinites overwhelmingly elected state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz last year. The day after Protasiewicz was sworn in, in August, lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the maps.

The high court ruled in December that the legislative maps were unconstitutional, with Protasiewicz providing the tie-breaking fourth vote. The justices ordered the state legislature to adopt new maps and warned they would draw up new lines if the lawmakers could not pass maps that Evers would sign.

Evers, lawmakers from both parties, and three independent groups submitted map options to the court for review. Independent consultants hired by the court found that the maps submitted by legislature Republicans and a conservative law firm were “partisan gerrymanders,” leaving only Democratic-drawn maps left to choose from.

The legislature passed Evers’s maps last week, to avoid having the high court draw the new district lines.

Under the new maps, Democrats are widely expected to gain seats in both the state Assembly and state Senate. They could even take control of the legislature, which Democrats have not done since 2010, giving them a trifecta with Evers in office until the end of 2026.

If Donald Trump needs to raise money to pay off his legal dues, he needs to step up his game. And no, that doesn’t mean selling $399 sneakers.

The former president launched a line of self-branded sneakers at Sneaker Con in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. The gold “Never Surrender High-Top Sneaker” retails for $399, and features an American flag on the back and a “T” on the side.

Fashionados can also buy a gold-and-white low-top sneaker for $199, or a red pair also for $199. Trump also launched branded fragrance, the “Victory 47” cologne and perfume, for $99, presumably so his fans don’t get too smelly when working out in their new running shoes.

Although Trump was booed off the stage at Sneaker Con, that reaction belied the true popularity of the shoes. All 1,000 pairs of the high-tops sold out within hours of Trump unveiling them.

Unfortunately for Trump, that amounts to just $399,000—barely a drop in the bucket of his hundreds of millions of dollars in legal dues.

Trump was hit Friday with a $354 million ruling for committing real estate-related financial fraud in New York state. In order to pay that off, he would need to sell 1,127,820 pairs of the high-top sneakers. That’s a lot of kicks.

The former president can appeal the ruling, but he would first have to pay the entire amount plus interest, which could add as much as an additional $100 million.

And that’s not to mention the fact that Trump also owes writer E. Jean Carroll $88.3 million for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and then defaming her twice when denying it. That’s an additional 471,929 sneakers that Trump would have to sell. And this still excludes all the fines Trump racked up during the trials for attacking courtroom staff, and the $400,000 he owes The New York Times.

One of Trump’s supporters launched a GoFundMe over the weekend, but that has so far raised just $452,000—again, not nearly enough to put a dent in the total amount he now owes.