Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Doofus-in-Chief Donald Trump has reportedly said that the United States will control Venezuela for an unspecified period and is “not afraid” to have military forces on the ground after a nighttime operation resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/americas/2026-01-03/trump-boots-on-ground-venezuela-transition-20284751.html

This feckless rhetoric -- “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground” -- calls to mind the language of Justice Holmes in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921): "Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic."

The history on the 21st century of the United States invading foreign countries and deposing governmental leaders is not encouraging. American military forces are good at wreaking havoc and breaking things, but not so good at occupying foreign lands in service of nation building. Afghanistan and Iraq were spectacular failures.

The last Republican President with two brain cells to rub together, George H. W. Bush, along with his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft explained in their book, A World Transformed, in 1998 why they declined to go to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the first Persian Gulf War:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Persian Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

What a pity it is that he didn't teach his son to read!

And what a pity it is that Doofus Trump did not keep that volume in his bedside cabinet rather than a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hitler-speeches-ivana-poisoning-blood-b2466500.html

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't GHW Bush (who you say could rub two brain cells together) invade Panama and actually drag out the pineapple faced buffoon Noriega for trial in the US?

Maduro will rot in prison for the rest of his life. There are tens of thousands of dead Americans from ODs on drugs delivered by Maduro and his associates. Are any of his crimes serious enough to warrant the death penalty, if convicted?

[John F. Carr]

The just-unsealed indictment does not allege any capital crimes. Death resulting is an element that must be charged in an indictment and proved before a defendant can be sentenced to death. I did not find "death" in the indictment.

Sentencing Maduro to death would have foreign relations consequences and the execution would likely never be carried out.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr....Make Nick Tartaglione Maduro's cell mate for a week or two. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don’t create martyrs!

[Sylvie1]

Couldn't they just put Maduro in the Epstein cell, and let nature (not speculating as to whose) take its course?

[Frank Drackman]

People like you are why Maduro should have been treated like the Terrorist he is, taken to Guantanamo for a swift Military Commission Trial and Execution (Like FDR did with the Nazi Saboteurs in "Operation Pastorius, who didn't kill anyone)
Or better yet, just shot and killed in his own residence like Barry Hussein O did with Bin Laden.

Frank

[not guilty]

The killing of Osama bin Laden was authorized by Congress in the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf That makes quite a difference.

[Frank Drackman]

It does at that, so what's all of the Hullabaloo??(which was actually a Prime Time version of American Bandstand, airing from January of 1965 to August 1966)
So it's OK for a 1/2 White POTUS to have a Terrorist killed, but not for a 100% White POTUS just to arrest one??
Still pretty amazing, 14 years later and none of the Photos of Bin Laden with his head blown off have surfaced. (and neither has Bin Laden, being on the floor of the Indian Ocean)

Frank

[not guilty]

This action should be viewed in the context of prior hostilities with Venezuela. It is evident that President Trump -- despite having a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed -- has no intention of seeking Congressional authorization for continued use of forces as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Congress should impeach him, remove him from office and disqualify him from holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

[Frank Drackman]

I know you can impeach Ex-POTUS's but can't you just let Parkinsonian Joe enjoy the time he has left?

[Commenter_XY]

Does the POTUS need authorization from Congress to bring a fugitive to justice? I think not. That seems to fall squarely in Art 2 wheelhouse.

[Davy C]

I would say we need authorization from Congress to do anything which, if another country did it to us, would result in war. If another country attacked DC and took Trump to stand trial, I think that would qualify.

The President cannot unilaterally declare war, and that has to include unilaterally initiating war or that's meaningless.

[wvattorney13]

"I would say we need authorization from Congress to do anything which, if another country did it to us, would result in war."

That's an awful lot of words you are reading into the Constitution that simply aren't there. And your expansion magically covers what Trump did.

[Magister]

It seems a fairly reasonable interpretation of Congress having the power to declare war; "it's not actually war" is not quite consistent with "if another country did this to us, it would be war".

[Davy C]

@wvattorney: You think the power to declare war is only the power to say "We declare war" and the power to perform an invasion of another country is totally unrelated? Well, I disagree with that. But how about the part of the Constitution which says treaties are part of the supreme law of the land? Can you say with a straight face that no treaties were violated in the performance of this action?

[David Nieporent]

It is not the president's goa in taking an action that requires authorization. It's the means chosen.

[David Nieporent]

*goal, not goa.

[not guilty]

"Does the POTUS need authorization from Congress to bring a fugitive to justice? I think not. That seems to fall squarely in Art 2 wheelhouse."

American forces have been engaged in hostilities against Venezuela for four months now. That requires Congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

And Maduro was not "a fugitive [from] justice," in that he was not present in the United States and did not flee to avoid prosecution.

[Riva]

Well, Not Guilty, imagine how sad the Russian collusion fraud, the fabricated J6 narrative, and the projected insincere democrat Epstein lies (just to name a few) must feel being abandoned for a new Venezuela obsession? They gave everything for the cause and now are abandoned for a shiny new narco-terrorist state like an unwanted marriage to sibling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Waco?
Ruby Ridge?

The military can help apprehend criminals…
,

[David Nieporent]

It cannot. And did not at Waco or Ruby Ridge, so WTF are you talking about?

[Riva]

Does Noriega ring a bell you fucking imbecile?

[Magister]

Was Noriega at Waco or at Ruby Ridge?

[Riva]

No fucking imbecile number 2. Fucking imbecile number 1 replied with an unqualified "It cannot" in response to a comment that the military can apprehend criminals. It surely can. As the Noriega case, and now Maduro case show.

[Kenneth Almquist]

You should not cite the behavior of federal law enforcement officials at Waco and Ruby Ridge as precedents. Federal law enforcement came to realize that these were mistakes, which is why there were no similar incidents in the three decades following Waco.

What this has to do with the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement purposes is beyond me.

[Joe_dallas]

The ATF and FBI did use some serious level military equipment at the branch davidian compound, while not officially part of the designated armed forces, it might have well been .

[Magister]

Ordinary non-federal police departments have received "serious level military equipment" from the Department of Defense since at least 1990.

[Malika la Maize]

“The ATF and FBI did use some serious level military equipment at the branch davidian compound, while not officially part of the designated armed forces, it might have well been .”

How a weasel cops to being wrong!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sentencing Maduro to death would have foreign relations consequences and the execution would likely never be carried out.

The prudential concerns are notable. On that level, the problems involved in seizing Maduro also come to mind, including the reportedly forty or more people killed in the operation.

Trump described it this way:

“an assault like people have not seen since World War II” and said it was “one of the most stunning effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.”

https://substack.com/inbox/post/183421653

Sounds like the celebratory comments of many "police actions" that, long-term, have various problems.

The drug war overall reflects this. OTOH, given the Administration's lax record regarding drug traffickers, this being an anti-drug measure is somewhat unclear.

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/01/01/opinion-trumps-coddling-of-drug-traffickers-threatens-our-safety-and-economy/

[not guilty]

Two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 924 indicate the possibility of a death sentence. Subsection (c)(5)(B)(1) provides:

(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section—

(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and
(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition—

(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

Subsection (j)(1) states:

(j) A person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall—

(1) if the killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

I haven't so far parsed the superseding indictments to see whether Maduro is charged under either of these subsections.

[not guilty]

Provided Maduro gets the full measure of due process to which he is entitled, I don't care whether he is sentenced to death.

As I have posted on another thread, though, the prosecution may have a Sixth Amendment speedy trial problem.

Maduro and others were indicted in the Southern District of New York during the first Trump administration -- more than five years ago. https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/maduro_moros_et_al_superseding_indictment_sdny_redacted_0.pdf I am unsure of the date of the original indictment, but the superseding indictment which I link here was unsealed during March of 2020 -- nearly six years ago. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/nicol-s-maduro-moros-and-14-current-and-former-venezuelan-officials-charged-narco-terrorism

Per Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), four factors are relevant:

The length of the delay;
the reason for the delay;
the accused's assertion of his right; and
prejudice resulting from the delay to the accused.

Justice Powell there wrote for a unanimous Court, "We regard none of the four factors identified above as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors, and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant." Id., at 533.

Unwarranted delay between indictment and arrest of the accused can result in a dismissal under Sixth Amendment grounds. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). As to the length of the delay, the Doggett Court observed that "Depending on the nature of the charges, the lower courts have generally found postaccusation delay "presumptively prejudicial" at least as it approaches one year." Id., at 652 n.1. Maduro accordingly should be entitled to a hearing if he seeks one.

As to the reason for the delay, officials from both the Trump and Biden administrations will need to explain why Maduro was not arrested sooner after being indicted.

If Maduro was unaware of the indictment prior to being arrested, (and if he now makes a speedy trial demand,) the third Barker v. Wingo factor should not work to his disadvantage. Compare, Doggett at 653-654.

It accordingly appears that resolution of a motion to dismiss would turn on application of the second and fourth Barker v. Wingo factors -- the reason for the delay of more than five years and whether the accused has been prejudiced by the delay.

[Commenter_XY]

Maduro was well aware of the indictments. There is a splendid X video of him screeching at The Donald to 'come get him'.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2007546721598079414

The Donald obliged him.

As for the death penalty, I think John F Carr said it well....the foreign policy implications argue against it. For now.

[Frank Drackman]

Maduro "FA'd" and "FO'd"

Frank

[not guilty]

XY, did you, uh, watch that video before linking to it?

There is not a single syllable there referring to a criminal indictment or an impending arrest.

[Commenter_XY]

I did watch, NG. And Maduro did screech for The Donald to come and get him.

[Michael P]

Reuters says it was a video from after Venezuela's 2024 election, directed at Edmundo González rather than Donald Trump.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/espanol/XPICQPQZORIEJNCI4VDGCEX7K4-2025-06-27/

[David Nieporent]

So you're saying that C_XY keeps posting about a video that doesn't say what he claims and isn't about the topic he claims it's about?

[Magister]

"The process is the punishment"; Commenter_XY does not care if there is any basis for any claim that suits his political preference.

[Michael P]

It might be in-character for Maduro, as the head of a corrupt military that just stole an election, to taunt the guy he stole the election from as a coward and dare him to come to Miraflores -- but it would make a lot more sense if Maduro directed that at Trump instead of Gonzáles. Maduro did aim saber-rattling -- with a literal sword -- at Trump.

[Zarniwoop]

NG, you should work with the most recent indictment from DOJ, not the 6yo one.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl

I don’t see a date on it, but USAtty Jay Clayton (appointed Aug 2025) signed it.

[Michael P]

NG should also admit that he's ignoring that both statutes of limitations and speedy-trial clocks are generally tolled while the defendant is a fugitive from the jurisdiction, as Maduro consistently has been.

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t see the SOL issue being relevant, as the U.S. has alleged an ongoing conspiracy. Absent withdraw by a defendant, the SOL doesn’t start to run as long as the conspiracy keeps going.

I’m not well-versed in speedy trial stuff. But if he’s arrested pursuant to the 2025 indictment (which is the first to indict Cilia Flores de Maduro, Nicolas Maduro’s wife, also arrested) then speedy trial seems to go out the window.

[Michael P]

I mentioned SOL tolling only because NG loves asking people why the normal five-year federal SOL doesn't kick in, even when the discussion includes things like testimony to Congress in 2023.

[David Nieporent]

That would be true under the statutory Speedy Trial Act — which does not particularly concern itself with fault wrt absent defendants — but do you have authority for the proposition that it applies to the 6th amendment's Speedy Trial provision? Or, for that matter, that Maduro would properly be classified as a "fugitive" even if fugitive tolling applied? He didn't flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. Nor did they attempt to arrest him at any point. Simply residing in a foreign country does not make one a fugitive.

[Michael P]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2022/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2022-20.pdf cites Barker v. Wingo (1972) as laying out a four-part balancing test for the Speedy Trial Clause: length of delay, reason of delay, prejudice to the defendant, and whether the defendant asserted the Clause.

Applying a similar analysis here, I think the government would win even if the clock starts in 2020 because the Venezuelan constitution prohibits extradition of the country's citizens, so there was absolutely no chance that they would extradite Maduro. On the other factors, length of delay is slightly longer for Maduro but he surely didn't assert a violation of the Clause, and I don't see prejudice against him from this delay.

[not guilty]

The absence of an extradition treaty between the United States and Venezuela would be evidence of one reason for delay, the second Barker v. Wingo factor, but it would not necessarily be dispositive.

The ability of the U.S. to effectuate Maduro's presence in the Southern District of New York is no greater in 2026 than it was in 2020.

[not guilty]

"NG should also admit that he's ignoring that both statutes of limitations and speedy-trial clocks are generally tolled while the defendant is a fugitive from the jurisdiction, as Maduro consistently has been."

Uh, no. A "fugitive" is someone who has been present in the charging jurisdiction and flees to avoid capture. For example, Article IV, § 2 of the Constitution states "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

Maduro, not having previously been in the United States, was not a fugitive, in that he did not flee.

[not guilty]

"NG, you should work with the most recent indictment from DOJ, not the 6yo one."

Wrong. Unlike the statutory speedy trial clock, which runs from the accused's first appearance in court, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial guaranty begins to run upon the arrest of the accused or the original initiation of formal charges by warrant or indictment, whichever occurs first. Were that not the case, the constitutional guaranty could become nugatory merely by the filing of a superseding indictment.

SCOTUS has opined that "The Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause homes in on the . . . period[] from arrest or indictment through conviction. The constitutional right, our precedent holds, does not attach until this phase begins, that is, when a defendant is arrested or formally accused. Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016).

Sixth Amendment rights are guaranteed to "the accused." On its face, the protection of the Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun, and extends only to those persons who have been "accused" in the course of that prosecution. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 (1971). Where a criminal defendant "was arrested, charged, or otherwise subjected to formal restraint prior to indictment[, such] event, therefore, that transformed the appellees into "accused" defendants who are subject to the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment." Id., at 325.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Provided Maduro gets the full measure of due process to which he is entitled, I don't care whether he is sentenced to death.

I do. I'm against the death penalty, partially since prudentially it often is not worth the candle. The death penalty will likely complicate this case as well.

Overall, to address wider questions, Kennedy v. Louisiana left open application of the death penalty in cases of "drug kingpin activity" even if the individual crime did not involve "a crime against an individual that did not result in death."

Again, big picture as to that last point, without going into the particulars of this individual case.

[not guilty]

I haven't done a deep dive into the superseding indictment to determine whether it charges any death eligible conduct.

I am opposed to the death penalty as a matter of policy. I would like to see it repealed by legislative bodies.

But I don't grieve when someone like Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein is executed. If and when Dylann Roof or Payton Gendron is put to death, I am unlikely to shed any tears. And when Osama bin Laden was dispatched to his appointment with 72 virgins, I was positively joyful. I hope that the most attractive of those women looks like Janet Reno on a bad day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Grieving and "not caring" to me are separate things. I don't grieve much at all (as some do) for some of these people. I do care.

I care more so in cases of this magnitude since it unnecessarily complicates things unless perhaps it is used for a plea bargain, which I guess is less likely in this context. We'll see.

[Joe_dallas]

This might explain why Biden never tried to arrest Maduro

https://x.com/AndrewCFollett/status/2007492029480378634

[wvattorney13]

This is all absurd. There is no speedy trial problem. Full stop.

First you complain that it was illegal to get him at all, and now Biden and Trump should have done this sooner. Which is it?

[not guilty]

"This is all absurd. There is no speedy trial problem. Full stop."

Au contraire. There is enough or a potential speedy trial problem to trigger a hearing if Maduro moves to dismiss on Sixth Amendment grounds. Such a motion may or may not be successful on the merits.

"First you complain that it was illegal to get him at all, and now Biden and Trump should have done this sooner. Which is it?"

The conduct of President Trump in acting without Congressional authorization is illegal and amounts to an impeachable offense, IMO. That is entirely separate from whether Maduro has or has not been deprived of a speedy trial.

I have cited relevant Sixth Amendment authorities, wvattorney13. You have cited no countervailing authorities. Ipse dixit pronouncements don't feed the bulldog.

[JohnSmith97]

I'm sure you are right this time, NG. Just like the dozens of other times you pontificated at length about US code about why somebody (generally an (R)) is guilty while someone else (generally a leftist) is not guilty.

I'm kind of surprised that nobody on here has a "NG's daily hot legal take accuracy" scorecard.

[not guilty]

JohnSmith97, I have not made any prediction here as to whether Maduro will or will not be found guilty if he goes to trial. I am unfamiliar with the nature and cause of the accusations against him, and I decline to speculate.

I also have not raised any objection to Maduro being tried in an American court, provided he is afforded the full measure of due process to which any criminal defendant is entitled. If President Trump had obtained Congressional authorization for the use of military forces against Venezuela, I would have no objection to the manner of Maduro's capture.

I am familiar with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and it is plain as the nose on your face that Doofus Trump has not complied with his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed in that regard.

Yes, I am a partisan Democrat. In other news, water is still wet.

I realize that I am at least as subject to confirmation bias as the next fellow. That is why I support my contentions with relevant legal authorities and original source materials. How many of my critics can say the same?

[Drewski]

We were in a formal, declared war with Panama. Not comparable.

[Frank Drackman]

Make sure you get that rent paid by the 5th, don’t want to get a late fee.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

In order to maximize our leverage right now you have to threaten “boot on the ground”. The goal should be forcing the current VP to hold free and fair elections and not regime change by military force.

Btw, with Iraq Democrats had to vote for force authorization for the same reason—giving Bush authorization gave him more than enough leverage to force regime change without invading…but he was such a dumbass he invaded anyway.

[John F. Carr]

Democrats had to vote for force to avoid looking weak when public opinion supported intervention.

[Lee Moore]

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam

This hoped for eventually was not forthcoming - at least not until Bush junior's mulligan. Maybe hoping is not enough ?

neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state.

Are you expecting a break up of Venezuela ? Land grabs by the Mighty Colombia and the Mightier Guyana ? And why would we care ?

We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Persian Gulf.

I think the US has been concerned about the role of Venezuela in propping up other enemies of the US in Latin America - eg Cuba. Is Venezuela under Chavez/Maduro critical to the sort of balance that the US worries about maintaining ?

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

Kinda depends on what your mission goals were up front.

Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately.

But apparently not in the case of Maduro.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

What coalition are we trying to maintain here, kemosabe ?

Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.

Do you think Trump is in the business of promoting the UN and its mandates, and even if he were, would the world be eager to follow ....Trump ?

There are all sorts of possible criticisms of Trump and this action available to you, why on Earth would you select this advice from Papa Bush, which even if it were sensible in the case of Iraq War 1, is - as detailed above - wholly inapt as an analogy to the current adventure ?

[not guilty]

My point is that American forces have not successfully occupied another country during this century. One Bush had the foresight to avoid trying.

Bush the father there showed much greater wisdom than Bush the doofus son. Or do you claim that the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and thereafter was a roaring success?

[Michael P]

I rather think your point is that you have not made one successful comment this century.

It's amazing what one can do by applying a Cheshire Cat approach to language and defining stupidly inconsistent goalposts.

[Lee Moore]

I appreciate that. Occupying countries is hard. It's just that Papa Bush's decision not to topple Saddam turned out to have disagreeable consequences - the guy survived, invaded Kuwait and needed to be taken out by Baby Bush. (Whose efforts to instal a workable democracy were just as unavailing as you describe.)

But this merely shows that both attempting too little, and attempting too much, can turn out badly. "Don't try to do too much" is like one of those Nietzschean aphorisms - they're good when they pan out, not so good when they don't.

Anyway my point was simply - if you want to persuade us of the dangers of trying to do too much, maybe lauding a guy who congratulated himself on doing what clearly turned out to be too little, wasn't the best choice.

Maybe Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014 would be a better choice - they did what they wanted and suffered pretty much no downside at all. That was an example of doing just enough. The second bite of the apple starting in 2022, not so much.

[Michael P]

Whose efforts to instal a workable democracy were just as unavailing as you describe.

Much, and perhaps most, of the blame for that can be laid at Iran's feet -- but today's Iraq is still better than Saddam's. And the closest analog to Iran in Latin America was Venezuela.

[not guilty]

"I appreciate that. Occupying countries is hard. It's just that Papa Bush's decision not to topple Saddam turned out to have disagreeable consequences - the guy survived, invaded Kuwait and needed to be taken out by Baby Bush. (Whose efforts to instal [sic] a workable democracy were just as unavailing as you describe.)"

Uh, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait occurred during the first Bush presidency. The point of the first gulf war was to undo that invasion.

[Lee Moore]

Do not interrupt me, when I am interupting you. Particularly if your point is correct.

[Riva]

I wonder what The NY Times thinks?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/how-predictable-are-leftists.php

HOW PREDICTABLE ARE LEFTISTS?
They are this predictable. From the New York Times Editorial Board, one of the world’s least distinguished assemblages:

OPINION
President Trump’s attack on Venezuela is illegal and
unwise, the Editorial Board of The New York Times writes..

Of course they do! Whether a military or law enforcement action by the U.S. government is “legal” or “illegal” depends on whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. So, bombing Libya, creating massive civil disorder and thus driving Qaddafi out of power was A-OK. Killing American citizens with missile strikes was regrettable, but certainly “legal,” when Obama was the president. But capturing a wanted narco-trafficer in a brilliantly executed surgical strike? Illegal!

As for “unwise,” time will tell. It will certainly turn out to be wise for the people of Venezuela. I am pretty sure it will be wise for us, too, but let’s see how events unfold. The New York Times Editorial Board, of course, has no more insight than the rest of us as to how the future will go. Less, in fact.

[Malika la Maize]

The fact that the latter was under a UN blessing might explain the different stance on legality to many non-robots.

[Michael Ejercito]

What does UN blessing have to do with this?

[Riva]

Would someone remind me when the UN Charter or a UN Security Council resolution expanded the US Constitutional authority of the President of the United States? Asking for creepy third string troll friend. And if it's not too much trouble, would someone also remind of the UN Security Council resolution authorizing Obama to murder US citizens?

[Malika la Maize]

Look at this dumb robot. It’s one thing if it doesn’t think much of international law, but it’s another for it to say someone must be a hypocrite because they take a different stance on two cases when they’re distinguished in that respect.

[Riva]

I guess third string parrot trolls don't think much of the US sovereign prerogative to bring a wanted narco-terrorist to justice consistent with the law and Constitutional authority of the President. Probably why no one really cares about the opinions of third string parrot trolls.

[not guilty]

Riva, provided he receives the full range of due process to which any criminal defendant is entitled, I have no problem with prosecuting Maduro in an American federal court. And if President Doofus had complied with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I would not have a problem with the use of American military forces to capture Maduro.

As it is, though, we are more than four months into hostilities with Venezuela. Trump's acting without securing authorization for use of military force from Congress is an impeachable offense. That state of affairs will be exacerbated if Trump puts boots on the ground in Venezuela without Congressional authorization.

[Riva]

Not the War Powers Resolution again. Did Obama violate the WPR when bombing Libya? Did Clinton violate the WPR invading Haiti? Every president since enactment has questioned the WPR’s constitutionality. The only difference that counts for leftists is political. As noted above, “[w]hether a military or law enforcement action by the U.S. government is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ depends on whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat.”

[not guilty]

Resort to whataboutism is invariably an acknowledgement of having no substantive response on the merits.

As the noted philosopher Ernest Tubb recognized, Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNvQTe96pk&list=RDFwNvQTe96pk&start_radio=1

[Riva]

I would say a lot of philosophers don’t care too much for hypocrisy.

And many wouldn’t care for your deflection either. Or maybe you missed the comment above noting that every president since enactment has questioned the WPR’s constitutionality.

[not guilty]

Presidents don't get to unilaterally determine whether a law is or is not constitutional, Riva. "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Doofus Trump's opinion about the War Powers Resolution and five bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee.

When “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress . . . he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” To succeed in this category, the President’s asserted power must be both “exclusive” and “conclusive” on the issue. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 10 (2015), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637–638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

Of course we have had this discussion before, but like Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord said of the Bourbons, you have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.

Under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, it is the prerogative of Congress, among other things:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; and

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added.]

By the plain language of the Constitution, the authority of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause includes supervision of the President's exercise of his Commander-in-chief duties under Article II, § 2. If Doofus Trump or any of his predecessors don't like that, tough noogie!

[not guilty]

My editing messed up the formatting of my comment, so here it is in corrected form:

Presidents don't get to unilaterally determine whether a law is or is not constitutional, Riva. "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Doofus Trump's opinion about the War Powers Resolution and five bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee.

Under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, it is the prerogative of Congress, among other things:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; and

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added.]

By the plain language of the Constitution, the authority of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause includes supervision of the President's exercise of his Commander-in-chief duties under Article II, § 2. If Doofus Trump or any of his predecessors don't like that, tough noogie!

When “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress . . . he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” To succeed in this category, the President’s asserted power must be both “exclusive” and “conclusive” on the issue. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 10 (2015), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637–638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

Of course we have had this discussion before, but like Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord said of the Bourbons, you have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.

[Riva]

Allow me to educate you on certain fundamentals. Presidents have a duty to follow the Constitution, just like the other branches. And considering that the judiciary does not give advisory opinions and, more precisely, this concerns a non-justiciable issue between the Congress and the Executive, presidents are properly acting within the scope of their authority and duty when questioning the constitutionality of the WPR. Let’s hope you learn something from the above.

[Riva]

Now it may be that third string parrot trolls think that the US needs permission from an international body to implement the Monroe Doctrine. And, as dizzyingly contradictory as that notion is, how such international permission became a prerequisite to a US president acting lawfully under the authority of the US Constitution also remains a mystery beyond the capacity of a third sting parrot troll to explain.

[David Welker]

The claim that Iraq was a failure or Afghanistan was a failure is often asserted, but typically is undeveloped.

Iraq is now a parliamentary democracy and is no longer ruled by Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who regularly murdered his own people, including by using chemical weapons against them.

[Magister]

Iraq is now a parliamentary democracy

Huh, I'm pretty sure I've heard around here that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. "Success" in Iraq has had a lot of downsides, and intervention in Afghanistan isn't even defended.

[Kazinski]

I was some skeptical of the repeated reports of Trump's cognitive decline, I didn't realize it was this serious:
"WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump was crushed today when aides informed him that Maduro and Mamdani are, in fact, different people.

Trump had initially hailed the successful deposing of a lunatic communist, only to learn it was the one in Venezuela, not New York."

https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/2007557604642369770

[not guilty]

Are the scales falling from your eyes, Kazinski? But The Babylon Bee? Really?

[Drewski]

Occasionally people say things other than what they mean and rely on the readers' understanding of context to supply the meaning. Kaz is a piece of shit but he knows the Bee is satirical.

[John 4]

He might not have a grasp on history, economics, or law, but he knows how “own the libs’!

[Joe_dallas]

Drew - That is an asshole comment -

[Michael P]

Speaking of scales from eyes, James Carville uses the same expression when expostulating that the Maduro arrest is really all about Epstein.

https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2007597061848367444

[Frank Drackman]

Carville always has had a Serpent look to him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Carville is the strongest argument for the existence of lizard people, but I think it's just resting evil face, just like Chuck Schumer.

[Swede425]

If Skeletor had a retarded little brother.

[Drewski]

The lengths Trump will go to just to distract people from the Epstein files is incredible. The materials they aren't releasing must be pretty damning. It's surely no coincidence that planning for the Venezuela operation began at roughly the same time it became clear that Congress would force the files' release, or that the delays in their release coincided with the operation.

[AmosArch]

If there is some nuclear gotcha against Trump in the files like for example ironclad video of him raping 9 year old girls why did the Dems keep it under wraps for years they were in control and they're just sitting on this perfect tool to instantly destroy the Trump Admin when they've pretty much thrown everything and the kitchen sink to try to get rid of him? Are you saying Dems like Biden are so evil they are willing to toss aside the central mission they've been on for a decade and ally with the sworn archenemy whom they've otherwise moved heaven and earth to destroy, for the sake of protecting an international cabal of rich super powerful child rapists? Wow.

So why should we vote for them again? Do you have a tier list of international shadowy omnipotent child rapist cabals and you just like the Dem one a little better?

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t think there’s a high probability of compromising photos.

But there are also other things Trump could be afraid of.

Like damming answers to “what did he know, and when did he know it?” that are not immediately obvious (and Biden admin simply wasn’t looking for, and lack resources to look for), but would come out with a crowd sourced connect-the-dots analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the simplest assumption is that there just wasn't anything there.

[Malika la Maize]

What’s the simplest assumption about Trump’s resistance to releasing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I think we actually CAN eliminate Trump being implicated as a likely explanation, because there genuinely is little chance Democrats wouldn't have used anything in there to implicate him back when they'd had access, but the best they could come up with was blacking out the faces of an innocent photo Epstein just had a clipping of.

But that doesn't rule out the files implicating other people Trump wanted in his debt.

[Magister]

Given the non-effect of the Access Hollywood confession of sexually assaulting women, why would Democrats have thought that Trump cultists would care about what's in the Epstein files, and enough to harm Epstein's victims? It is surprising that Donald Trump would so resist being associated more than he already is with Jeffrey Epstein after everything else he's gotten away with; it is likely that what's there is only creepy but ambiguous stuff like the birthday card Trump threatened lawsuits over. Trump does have a keen instinct for publicity, and he evidently thinks that sort of thing is enough to combine with previous revelations to be bad for him.

[Michael P]

the Access Hollywood confession of sexually assaulting women

There was no such thing.

This has been yet another installation of Magister blatantly lying about well-documented facts.

[Magister]

Strong denial! Too bad it's not grounded in reality.

a jury reasonably could find, even from the Access Hollywood tape alone, that Mr Trump admitted in the Access Hollywood tape that he in fact has had contact with women’s genitalia in the past without their consent, or that he has attempted to do so.

[Michael P]

Those of us who are not as dumb as bricks understand that what Kaplan wrote there is not the same as what you claimed. But hey, at least the two of you share an inability to understand basic English.

[Magister]

You don't think "admitted ... he in fact has had contact with women's genitalia ... without their consent" is different from "a confession of sexually assaulting women"? Or are you hanging yourself with the "or that he has attempted to do so" part?

[Michael P]

A loony judge saying "a jury could reasonably find" is not the same as "it is true that", or even "a trier of fact found that". A trier of fact would need to ignore what Trump actually said, but New York has TDS that way.

And we already knew you couldn't read simple English.

[Magister]

Trump couldn't get an appeals court to reverse that. More basis for my comment than almost anything Michael P says in any of his extended tantrums.

[Malika la Maize]

So, you can think the best of Trump’s resistance because of what you read into Biden’s resistance. Wow.

[bernard11]

But that doesn't rule out the files implicating other people Trump wanted in his debt.

No it doesn't. If that's what's going on I guess we can add blackmail to the list of felonies Trump has committed. The guy's a whole crime syndicate, all by himself.

[Swede425]

LOL!
They're saving it for when he runs for his third term.

[Malika la Maize]

MARTIN: So you've given us a lot to sort of think about here. You said that you're going to ask for a special master. As you just mentioned, you have a colleague and co-sponsor, Republican Thomas Massie. Does he also agree with you on this, that there ought to be a special master appointed at this point?

KHANNA: He does. We both are working and plan to announce something early next week. We're also working together on inherent contempt for Pam Bondi. That means that after a 30-day grace period, she could be fined every day that these documents are not released. And if I...

MARTIN: Would she be fined personally, or would she be fined in her capacity as attorney general, in which case, the government would provide - would cover any fine that was handed MARTIN: So you've given us a lot to sort of think about here. You said that you're going to ask for a special master. As you just mentioned, you have a colleague and co-sponsor, Republican Thomas Massie. Does he also agree with you on this, that there ought to be a special master appointed at this point?

KHANNA: He does. We both are working and plan to announce something early next week. We're also working together on inherent contempt for Pam Bondi. That means that after a 30-day grace period, she could be fined every day that these documents are not released. And if I...

MARTIN: Would she be fined personally, or would she be fined in her capacity as attorney general, in which case, the government would provide - would cover any fine that was handed to her?

KHANNA: She would be fined personally.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5664083

[Michael P]

Epstein. Epstein Epstein Epstein. Epstein! Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? Epstein.

[Malika la Maize]

MAGAns: We don’t talk about Epstein!

[Michael P]

... a fabrication belied by comments by AmosArch and Brett Bellmore that you already responded to in this very thread.

[Malika la Maize]

That was a reply to you, you’re obviously (suddenly) upset people keep talking about it.

[Michael P]

I am not upset at all, I was just mocking how you think mindless repetition of "Epstein" means anything.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh National Pubic Radio? That's Authoritative.
Who's "In-Depth" Investigative Reporting on the Somali-Child-Care Scandal (My 2 Shekels? I'd pay the Somalians NOT to take care of American Children) involved calling ONE, yes ONE, that's ONE(!) of the Agencies in the Video and asking if they were legitimate.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a transcript of an interview so probably authoritative of what he’s proposing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why Trump should say “Fuck the Victims” and release EVERYTHING— no matter how graphic, how demeaning, how damaging.

[Joe_dallas]

Drew - another asshole comment on the Epstein files.
Did you forget about Bill Clinton

[Drewski]

What about him, fellow asshole? I hated Clinton, voted against him, and have been talking shit about him ever since. I assume he participated in rapes and was fully complicit with Epstein. It's only unfortunate that the Trump administration is so corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest that their investigation of him is meaningless.

[Malika la Maize]

All jd has is whatabout.

[Joe_dallas]

screaming "whataboutism" "whatabout" is simply admitting you have double standards or no standards. You remain consistently inconsistent.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re so lacking in self-awareness and logic you don’t see that it’s you constantly whatabouting that demonstrates you have no principles. That Bill Clinton did bad things isn’t a defense to the charge of Trump doing bad things.

[Joe_dallas]

Keep denying your double standards and hypocrisy

[bernard11]

Keep showing us that you have no response to Malika's comment.

You also shouldn't insult your mother by pretending she never told you that two wrongs don't make a right.

[Malika la Maize]

jd has no sense of right from wrong, he can only tell the difference between a D and R.

[Malika la Maize]

This fool-Drewski pretty plainly demonstrated no double standard here (that’s who he responded too initially), but all he can do is scream whatabout. Because he has no principles other than partisanship.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The lengths Trump will go to just to distract people from the Epstein files is incredible.

Were the over 100 deaths in the Caribbean also merely a "wag the dog" process? How about the hundreds of other strikes?

("Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump has overseen at least 626 air strikes, according to data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project that was shared with Military Times.")

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2026/01/realism-restraint-2

Trump has remarkably "distracted" people for quite some time in quite a lot of ways.

[Kazinski]

The BBC is hardly known as a MAGA bastion, but this is what they are reporting from Venezuela, and these are the lead paragraphs, I'm not cherry picking from deep in the article:

"As the dust settles in Caracas, Venezuelans are reacting to the news of President Nicolás Maduro's capture by the US with hope, fear, and uncertainty.

People began to emerge in the streets Saturday after a night rocked by explosions in the Caracas Valley, with moods that ranged from celebration to condemnation.

Dina, a local resident, told the BBC that for now, she is grateful to the US for "taking Maduro out of here" because now, she "at least can see some light at the end of the tunnel again".

But the political climate remains tense, part of why she did not give the BBC her real name.

Jorge, another Venezuelan who lives near Caracas, told the BBC that while he's grateful to be "well-supported by Trump and the entire United States", he fears the coming days will not be easy.

"Now that they are taking this man away, what's going to happen?" Jorge told the BBC. "It doesn't guarantee us anything. So there is a bit of uncertainty. We don't know what the coming days will bring."

Supporters of Maduro's government have also been rallying in the streets of Caracas, demanding the US release their leader. Caracas Mayor Carmen Meléndez, a firm government loyalist, joined in the rally to protest against what she called Maduro's "kidnapping"."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86vq753nwpo

Its not surprising they are more hopeful now. this article was from 2018 and described the socialist paradise a few years ago, and explains why 8 million people fled:

"Zoos under siege
One aspect of Venezuela’s food crisis involves problems at its zoos. An attraction for the country’s urban public and tourists in better times, zoos have in recent years been scenes of horror, as reported by the local press and echoed in international media.

In August 2017, a keeper at Zulia Zoo near Maracaibo reported that animals had attacked each other for lack of food. Other animals were apparently slaughtered by the keepers to feed the facility’s carnivores. Thefts have been rife at the same zoo. Forty animals have been reported stolen, likely to be killed and eaten. Vietnamese pigs, monkeys, macaws and redfish were taken at night. Some robberies involved endangered species including tapirs. Two peccaries, a type of wild pig, were stolen, while buffalo were butchered on site.

Similar stories have been reported from other Venezuelan zoos: Peacocks and other captive birds were the victims of hungry thieves who raided Bararida Zoo in Barquisimeto, 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Caracas. Several men dismembered a horse inside the Caricuao Zoo in Caracas, the capital; tapirs, sheep and rabbits have also been stolen from there."

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/05/venezuelas-hungry-hunt-wildlife-zoo-animals-as-economic-crisis-grows/

Once you've eaten the rich, it doesn't seem like there is that much left to eat next.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/convicted-wisconsin-judge/2026/01/03/id/1240641/

The schnook in schlub's clothing is gone. Buh bye.

[Frank Drackman]

If she’s not a man she’s a very very ugly woman.

[Frank Drackman]

How long until the Moe-Saad does an Eichmann with Man-damn-he?
I mean kidnapping him and taking him to Israel for trial, not hanging him.
No 86-ing the Zoran!

Frank

[not guilty]

What crime for which he should stand trial do you surmise that Mayor Mamdani has committed, Frank?

[Frank Drackman]

"Crimes against Humanity" would about cover it. There's precedent for that.

[not guilty]

Based upon what conduct, pray tell?

[Frank Drackman]

That'll come out in what we call "Discovery", Jeez, I thought you were supposed to be a Lawyer?

[not guilty]

Discovery in criminal cases is quite limited, Frank. And it consists primarily of the government being required to disclose information to the accused.

The government has the investigative resources of law enforcement and the grand jury prior to charging the accused with a crime.

If you are merely talking out your ass, grow a pair and own your ignorance.

[Frank Drackman]

In Chess we call what you just did "turning over your King"
I love playing guys like you,
"You wouldn't have won if I had paid attention to my Horsey!"(Preemptive Strike on Queenie, that's the preferred spelling)
You're like the Ali-Bama fans,
"We wouldn't have lost except for the 5 Fumbles!"
Of course Chess is all about paying attention to your Horseys and Foo-bawl is about not fumbling.
But you're onto something about the risk of trusting a Jury of his "Peers" (what are you gonna do? dig up Marcos, Noriega, Sodomy Hussein? Khomeni and summon them to Jury Duty?)
Of course a Jury in the SDNY won't be much better, I'm betting he pulls an Epstein. (Or has an "Epstein" thrust upon (or into) him.

Frank

[hobie]

Uh, Frankie, it has been not guilty playing you in this string. Now run along and get AI to cough out something more substantial for you to post.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank, I say, Boy! go away, ya botherin' me! Don't you have some Black Market Pall Malls to peddle to your Knee-grow neighbors??

[hobie]

Am I the only one who thinks Foghorn Leghorn was patterned after the villain in Cape Fear?

[Michael P]

hobie- Probably so, considering that the cartoon character appeared in cartoons between 1946 and 1964, whereas the original Cape Fear movie was released in 1962 (based on a 1957 novel). You're hallucinating yet again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I thought he was a version of Senator Claghorn from the Fred Allen show.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Am I the only one who thinks Foghorn Leghorn was patterned after the villain in Cape Fear?"

Pretty much. 12" has it right

[bernard11]

That'll come out in what we call "Discovery"

So arrest first, decide on the crime later?

[Kazinski]

I keep seeing concerns about the US stealing Venezuela's oil. Venezuelans are probably hoping we do.

Venezuela started expropriating foreign oil assets in 2007, in many cases without compensation.

As a result Venezuelan oil production dropped by about 2/3.

Coincidentally per capita income (in current US dollars) also dropped by 2/3 (actually 5/6, but its recovered to just be a 2/3 drop in the last few years):

2010: Around $13,600 - $13,800.
2019: Dropped to approximately $2,624 .
2020: Around $1,500 - $2,000 .
2022: Around $3,155 .
2023: Around $3,600 - $3,800 .
2024/2025 (Estimates): Approaching $4,200 - $4,500.

Forbes has a good overview of what happened and why:

"Maintaining production of heavy oil requires constant reinvestment, reliable power, and uninterrupted access to diluents—many of which historically came from the U.S. Gulf Coast. Without these inputs, and high enough oil prices to support them, production systems fail quickly.

When foreign partners exited Venezuela, PDVSA lost the ability to sustain that complex ecosystem. Steam-assisted extraction stalled. Upgrading capacity deteriorated. Fields that required continuous maintenance were left idle. Even when oil prices recovered globally, Venezuela was unable to capitalize.

This is the paradox at the heart of Venezuela’s energy crisis: the country with the world’s largest oil reserves lacks the operational capacity to turn those reserves into stable production without outside help."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2026/01/03/venezuela-maduro-and-the-long-shadow-of-oil-expropriation/

[John F. Carr]

The US is not yet in a position to steal Venezuela's oil. The US is in a position to negotiate deals from a position of strength. Time will tell if acting President Rodriguez wants to cooperate with Trump.

[John F. Carr]

Rubio backed away from Trump's claim that the US will run Venezuela. So sanctions and negotiations will be American policy.
Descriptions of acting President Rodriguez differ. She is a Maduro clone or she is much more moderate. If Trump can keep his mouth shut a face-saving deal with Moderate Rodriguez could happen. Despite his reputation for talking without thinking, he did keep his mouth shut about the operation to arrest Maduro.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump mentioned US oil companies would rebuild VEN refining capacity. How are the US companies chosen?

I figure ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are on the list. Each of them can afford 20B (estimates are 60B is needed for complete overhaul). But who else? What about EOG and Marathon?

Everyone will want 'in' on this action.

[Kazinski]

I'm not so sure. Its going to take a lot of investment, and oil prices are pretty low now.

Guyana, next door, is bringing major new resources on line that are much lighter sweeter crude.

Add to that the "risk" that the Russian Ukraine war will end ending sanctions on Russian oil adding to the glut.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Our refining industry uses their type of oil…but it’s actually cheaper because a country needs cheap natural gas to refine heavy crude. And with cheap natural gas you can even transform the natural gas into diesel and kerosene without the heavy crude. Basically the oil play exists but it’s sort of 2007 type thinking. Biden made us energy dominant in 2022 so it’s just more winning for America like we’ve been winning since 2010.

[ThePublius]

"Biden made us energy dominant in 2022"

What? Biden made us energy dependent soon after he took office, after Trump had made us energy independent, mostly due to fracking which Biden strove to stop.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You are a moron. Biden’s policies led to record fossil fuel production and record LNG exports and cheap energy. Trump’s policies have led to expensive heating and utilities.

[ThePublius]

That is such revisionist bullshit it's hard what to make of it!

[John 4]

“ How are the US companies chosen?”

Judging by Trump’s history, a crypto bribe is the traditional way now.

[John F. Carr]

An alternative method is to pick the company that gives the least benefit to blue states.

[hobie]

Venezuela's oil is offshore, and the heavy hitters for that are Trans Ocean and Valaris. I would have also said Ocean Rig: a Greek company that had $billions invested in brand new drill ships. But when oil went to zero in 2020, they had to send every single one of their ships to Asia to be torn apart for scrap. Believe it or not, it made more financial sense to do just that.

And there is the cautionary tale for glutting the world with new oil. It causes all energy companies across the globe to downsize, lay off employees by the thousands and stop exploring.

I can tell you chaps this: we're having an emergency board meeting on Monday. We will be discussing the mothballing of American operations. We will also be making a play for Venezuela.

Like any operator, we will have to make bids to the Venezuelans or Trump or Kimberly Guilfoyle or whomever in the Trump Clan is running the show.

The only people who are going to benefit from this are the refiners like Valero. So check - if you can - the stock plays Devin Nunez/Jim Jordon/The Trump Clan have made in that sphere.

[bernard11]

How are the US companies chosen?

I have a guess.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

America invaded Iraq for their oil—Bush wanted to make them wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunately the world is awash in oil and so Venezuela missed that window but we will still import their oil but it won’t be for $100/barrel like in 2006. Qatar got on board with Bush/Cheney and they are the wealthiest country to ever exist as Tillerson invested hundreds of billions of dollars from XOM’s windfall profits into Qatar’s LNG export industry.

[ThePublius]

"Venezuela started expropriating foreign oil assets in 2007, in many cases without compensation."

It started in 1976.

[Frank Drackman]

It's sad that you know that, sadder that you think anyone cares that you know that.

[hobie]

If Venezuela expropriated rigs and facilities without compensation, then, yes, that was bad. But claiming dominion over the national patrimony - oil - should be acceptable.

[Michael P]

"if"? hobie is not only hallucinating but grossly ignorant.

And also happy for "the warmth of collectivism" to abrogate contracts and rights granted in voluntary exchange for benefits.

[Kazinski]

Venezuela wanting to control their own assets and use them for.the benefit of the country is perfectly acceptable, Saudi Arabia of course did that more than half a century ago.

But acting like thugs and making it impossible to for foreign firms to.do business in your country is counterproductive.

Here is the story of the Citgo 6 who were imprisoned for 5 years from 2017-2022.

"All six U.S. oil executives previously detained in Venezuela, known as the "Citgo 6," were released in 2022.
The six men were arrested in November 2017, accused of attempting to refinance corporate debt without government authorization, and later convicted on corruption-related charges by the Nicolás Maduro regime. The U.S. government consistently maintained they were wrongfully detained and victims of a political move to put pressure on the U.S. government.
Their release occurred in two stages as part of prisoner exchanges between the U.S. and Venezuela:
March 2022: One executive, Gustavo Cárdenas, was released following a meeting between U.S. and Venezuelan officials.
October 2022: The remaining five executives were freed as part of a larger prisoner swap.
While these specific oil workers are no longer in captivity, other Americans remained detained in Venezuela, and the U.S. Department of State continues to issue a warning against travel to the country, noting a "high risk of wrongful detention of U.S. nationals".

[David Nieporent]

So, six people were arrested when Trump was president, stayed as prisoners throughout his entire presidency, and Joe Biden got them out.

[Michael P]

Yes, Joe Biden released drug smugglers (nephews of Maduro's wife) to reward Venezuela for taking hostages.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/us/venezuela-iran-prisoner-swap.html

[Kazinski]

Well I agree Dave, Trump would have much more justification to have invaded Venezuela then.

He should have at least issued an ultimatum, bit that might have had something to do with the law fare he was being subjected to most of his first term tying his hands.

[John F. Carr]

Another order to "facilitate" return of a deported person.

On December 22 Judge Parrish (D. Utah) ordered that a person in immigration detention not be removed from the United States pending a hearing on his habeas petition.

On December 23 ICE removed him.

On December 31 "the court now requires Respondents to facilitate Mr. Reyes Vasquez’s return to the United States." She cited the Abrego Garcia case as precedent.

Judge Parrish awarded attorney's fees to petitioner under the Equal Access to Justice Act. There is a circuit split on whether this is allowed in habeas cases. The Tenth Circuit says yes.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72063939/reyes-vasquez-v-noem/

This is related to the case Eugene Volokh posted about where a judge ruled prisoners should not be held incommunicado.

[Commenter_XY]

What stops Sec Noem from saying, "Sorry, no can do. Not bringing him back anytime soon. Catch you in a year or two."

What does the judge do then?

[not guilty]

What stops Sec Noem from saying, "Sorry, no can do. Not bringing him back anytime soon. Catch you in a year or two."

What does the judge do then?

The judge can initiate civil contempt proceedings and hold an evidentiary hearing regarding whether Secretary Noem in fact has the present ability to comply with the order. If the judge finds that to be so, she can lock the Secretary up in jail until she complies with the order.

[Frank Drackman]

And maybe one day the Atlanta Falcons will win a Super Bowl, I wouldn't count on it.

[Malika la Maize]

Baker’s just hoping they can beat the Saints today.

[Frank Drackman]

So he can get an early Vacation? Think you got that backwards there Queenie.

[Malika la Maize]

Ah, correct, mea culpa it’s Bryce that’s hoping that.

I was shocked to see that the Saints have under my radar risen to only one game under the Dirty Birds so maybe it won’t be a walk in the park.

[hobie]

As a lifelong Saints fan, moving to Cleveland was hilarious. All my neighbors asked if I would now support the Browns. I always point to the emblem on my beanie and say, 'Look, I already have one loser team to deal with.'

One thing I didn't know about the Browns was when I was in a little bar. On the wall I saw an old poster of a faggety little elf. I ask the bartender why that elf is on a Browns poster. The lady says that's Brownie. You mean the mascot for the Browns is an elf?! I thought it was a dog or something. No, its Brownie the Elf.

[Frank Drackman]

and they stole it from the St. Louis Browns (Now THAT was an accurate name for a team, I've been to St. Louis, lots of "Browns") which is sort of par for the course for Cleveland.
I mean they lost a team to Baltimore, we're not talking Miami, we're not talking LA, we're not talking even Oklahoma City or Nashville, we're talking Baltimore (HT A Iverson) And then when Tagliabue gave them a Sympathy (Redacted) I mean, Expansion team, they still suck (1-3 Playoff Record since their rebirth)
I know, they're not officially an "Expansion" Team, I'm not sure exactly why, they had an "Expansion" Draft to get their players (who else would go there?)
and speaking of Hayseeds, how about the Brown Fans (and Packers, Steelers, Bills) who insist on Outdoor Stadiums??

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Those last 4 Brees/Payton years made me lose interest in the NFL. One team can’t lose like that 4 years in a row and it not affect one’s psyche. In the 4th year we beat Tampa twice in the regular season and then played the most lackluster game ever against the eventual champions.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I saw the Falcons win a Super Bowl…they had such a big lead I turned off the TV and went to sleep. Did I miss something?? 😉

[Commenter_XY]

How could a single fed dist court judge even hope to make that determination? = ...whether Secretary Noem in fact has the present ability to comply with the order.

DHS has a lot of important priorities, with national security implications. Judge isn't competent to make determinations of priority or resourcing.

When was the last time a fed dist ct judge imprisoned a Cabinet Officer for civil contempt?

[DDHarriman]

Hold on. Does that judge identify as a Democrat?

If so, it's ONLY them that are allowed to make those determinations.

[not guilty]

"How could a single fed dist court judge even hope to make that determination?"

Just like a judge makes any other factual determination -- based on evidence adduced by the parties. (If I am using words that are not part of your vocabulary, XY, tough noogie!)

Civil contempt sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994).

If the secretary claims an inability to comply with the subject order, she is free to offer evidence to that effect. That evidence is subject to adversarial testing, via cross-examination or the production of countervailing evidence by the beneficiary of the subject order. The Court may believe or disbelieve the evidence if such is proffered.

Of course, inability and unwillingness to comply are separate concepts.

Groucho Marx had panache enough to ask, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Kristy Noem doe not.

[jb]

Someone should start some kind of new genre of fiction in which brown people get scooped off the streets, held without any ability to communicate with their family before being illegally deported, and then the real heroes of our story, the high-ranking right-wing government officials, flagrantly ignore judicial decisions to put they cherry on top.

So far there's only isolated examples of this in the real world, and I can tell XY and many others here really aren't getting enough of their fix. Seems like someone could make a lot of money!

[John F. Carr]

There seems to be a division of authority on the court's inherent power to order the federal government to pay money in contempt cases. An ordinary defendant who causes $100,000 in expenses and legal fees through failure to comply with an injunction can be ordered to pay $100,000. Such non-punitive damages can be imposed without proof of a willful violation. The big racial profiling suit against Maricopa County included a civil contempt award independent of the criminal prosecution of Sheriff Joe.

[not guilty]

"There seems to be a division of authority on the court's inherent power to order the federal government to pay money in contempt cases. An ordinary defendant who causes $100,000 in expenses and legal fees through failure to comply with an injunction can be ordered to pay $100,000. Such non-punitive damages can be imposed without proof of a willful violation. The big racial profiling suit against Maricopa County included a civil contempt award independent of the criminal prosecution of Sheriff Joe."

That is why, when a civil contemnor has the ability to comply with the subject order, it is important to put some asses in jail unless and until they comply.

[Martinned]

I’m sure Maduro also had lawyers willing to explain why everything he did was legal…

[Michael P]

He must feel very reassured about that now. The warmth of collectivism won't heat a well-deserved jail cell, though.

[Michael P]

Does the combination of the Guarantee Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause allow the federal government to protect state-level whistleblowers from retaliation by their state government?

https://nypost.com/2026/01/03/us-news/minnesota-whistleblowers-being-electronically-surveilled-after-reporting-fraud-rep/

[Malika la Maize]

Is our federal government interested in protecting whistleblowers now?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-federal-employees-would-lose-whistleblower-safeguards-under-trump-rule-2025-11-18/

[Michael P]

Does that opinion piece have any more actual facts, as opposed to someone's predigested conclusion, than this hard-hitting discovery?

That footnote, however, did not use the word "whistleblower."

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, I’m sure the administration that fired the BLS statistician, the DOD analysts who said Iran wasn’t close to a nuke and the ones that said that nuke program wasn’t obliterated, a bunch of IGs, etc., is totes not going to go after whistleblowers!

[Michael P]

Sarcastic tangentially related whatabout isn't an argument. I conclude that you concede that the piece you linked is really an advocacy opinion column.

[Malika la Maize]

Not at all, past practice can be evidence of future intent and as for the piece it both explains its contention as well as quoting the expert heads of whistleblower protection organizations. If you think they’re incorrect argue why.

[Michael P]

They're hiding the memo and not quoting from it. It's not my burden to disprove a theory that is supported only by the opinions of biased parties -- they are the ones arguing a theory, and they have the burden to prove it. They did not even come close to doing so.

[Malika la Maize]

Biased parties being whistleblower protection organizations, the ones devoted to what you were supposedly putting down, lol!

[Michael P]

I am glad we agree that they are biased. And that you concede the rest.

[Malika la Maize]

If they’re biased it’s in favor of whistleblower rights which is what you were pretending to be championing above, ya goof.

[Joe_dallas]

advocacy piece is correct. Zero citation of the actual policy document, though quoting comments from "experts heads"

[hobie]

Uh oh, it's MichaelP. Better check the skin colors of the whistleblowers vs the defendants...

[checking]

Yep.

[Michael P]

These people are blowing the whistle on Tim Walz and his underlings. Do you think it's wrong to reveal wrongdoing by government officials because they're white, hallucinating hater?

[hobie]

What I like to 'reveal', Michael, is your obsession with black crime.

[Michael P]

Aimee Bock isn't black, and this kind of whistleblower reports government waste, fraud or abuse. Skin color has nothing to do with it, you hallucinating hater.

[hobie]

You just keep posting your links, Michael. I'll be waiting.

[Sarcastr0]

"Rep. Kristin Robbins, a Republican who chairs the state’s Fraud Prevention and State Oversight committee, told The Post that whistleblowers who have come forward to report fraud to her committee and to their agencies claimed to be “electronically surveilled” after news stories about the Somali daycare center scams went viral."

Michel, not even the Post cited this bare claim as truth.

But you did.

Just as they intended.

You're the sucker they dream about.

[Michael P]

You're still a gutless liar. I wish that was news.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted a quote from the piece.

You got anything other than a tantrum?

[Michael P]

Yes, I read more than just the quote. Including the part where you accused me of saying something I never did, you gutless liar.

You have nothing but gutless lies and other straw men.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying that the question in your OP was not predicated on a whistleblower being surveilled?

Because that's just a lie, as anyone who reads the OP can tell.

Are you pathetic enough to push obvious lies to try and earn Internet points?

[Michael P]

Whether there was retaliation can't really be determined until we understand the answer to the question that I asked, because it will depend on what the (potentially hypothetical) federal law actually defines as prohibited retaliation.

And you're ignoring that the whistleblowers alleged more concrete retaliation than mere surveillance, such as denied promotions.

You remain a gutless liar.

[Malika la Maize]

Says purely partisan whistleblower protector. Gutless-every accusation…

[John F. Carr]

I would look to the First Amendment instead. Public employees speaking on matters of public concern have some protection from retaliation.

[Malika la Maize]

An expert witness was called to the stand at a Brooklyn domestic sexual assault trial to tell the jury about the impact of intimate abuse in the Islamic faith.

The testimony included claims that Muslim men entering arranged marriages seek virgin brides from their native countries so they “will be more submissive,” court records show. The witness, Chitra Raghavan, a professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, also said that Islamic men “across religion” tend to ignore rules giving women the right to reject a husband’s sexual advances.

Men in arranged South Asian unions “sometimes want, particularly if they know they want to be controlling,” to find a wife in their native countries, Raghavan testified, citing an alleged cultural belief “that if a woman comes from their so-called mother country, she will be easier to control, ultimately, because she will be more submissive.”

After hearing that expert testimony, a Brooklyn jury found Meftaah Uddin, 33, a Pakistani American man raised in Brooklyn, guilty of repeated sexual assaults against his wife in his family’s Brooklyn apartment. He was sentenced to seven years in prison in late 2022.

His attorneys say he was denied a fair trial because Raghavan’s “sweeping generalizations about Muslim culture” painted him as abusive by nature and prejudiced the jury. The attorneys, Lauren Di Chiara and Robert Fantone, have appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.

If the court takes up the matter — it accepts only a fraction of the cases presented to it — it could set new rules for expert testimony about immigrant and religious cultures, a little-examined, but sometimes critical, aspect of the criminal justice system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/02/expert-testimony-domestic-violence-islam/

[Michael P]

Mr. Uddin should have lived in Pakistan if he didn't want to face justice under a legal system that recognizes marital rape.

The WaPo commits malpractice by describing the jury's decision as "[a]fter hearing that expert testimony" unless that was the only evidence the jury was provided. I cannot imagine that even a NYC court would allow that as the only evidence for a trier of fact.

[Malika la Maize]

After doesn’t necessarily mean it was the only or even sufficiently dispositive evidence. The prosecution can argue harmlessly error. The more interesting general question is should expert testimony of this nature be allowed? Lots of conservative religious and cultural groups could be the target of expert testimony about how they like women that are submissive to their husbands.

[Michael P]

Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 704 don't govern state trials, but they suggest that this kind of expert-witness testimony is admissible in a federal trial.

[Malika la Maize]

States often ape those rules (some still stick to Frye iirc) but that doesn’t fully address the issues this brings up anyway.

[Michael P]

If you throw in some more vague and unbacked (and yet still wrong!) assertions, and $6, you might be able to get a coffee at Starbucks.

[Malika la Maize]

Is it vague that states tend it follow federal rules of procedure (and I even noted the exceptions)? That’s some determined ankle-biting, don’t hurt your teeth!

[Michael P]

You're a fucking moron.

"that doesn’t fully address the issues this brings up anyway" is vague. And wrong even so.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, it’s that part you’re biting ankles on.

And you’re wrong there because not only is the legal question of would rules of procedure allow the testimony not the only one here (there’s the moral or you might say political), but there’s other potential legal aspects (is it an equal protection issue?).

[Michael P]

It's not ankle biting, you are just wrong. The thinking that resulted in those rules reflects a long chain of thought and debate about the moral and political aspects of admissibility (of that broad type of expert testimony, where an expert offers a conclusion closely related to the law and the necessary fact patterns but not about the specific fact pattern that would decide the case).

And just arm-waving at equal protection doesn't create an issue there.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, if it was the product of a long debate it must be morally and politically settled once and for all! Did those debates include extensive discussion of this kind of testimony?

[Michael P]

Yes. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2023-title28a-node230-article7-rule704&num=0&edition=2023

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t see any discussion of expert witness testimony of generalizations on a defendant’s religious or ethnic group in that.

[Michael P]

It doesn't specifically discuss expert witness testimony in 2022 in the City of New York, either. Whoop-de-do.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, those are of equal potential moral or legal import, lol.

[Michael P]

Your arm-waving in the direction of an argument that you can't make is just telling on yourself.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re (predictably) confused between “arm waving” and not being sure yet of the full implications of this practice (which, as the article suggests, seems relatively new), but confident it might raise new questions. You’re just pointing to current law and jumping up and down like the Orangutans in Planet of the Apes as if you’ve made some dispositive point about this issue. “We’ve got these old wine skins, let’s just put this new wine it, what’s the issue here!”

[Michael P]

The article doesn't suggest that it's a new issue, just that there's not much precedent that specifically addresses it.

You keep trying to point at distinctions, but can't elaborate them to the point of being able to claim that they're relevant (or allow anyone to explain why they're not). That's why you are arm waving.

[Malika la Maize]

“The article doesn't suggest that it's a new issue, just that there's not much precedent that specifically addresses it.”

Holy shit, are you self-aware or ignorant of English?

I mean, talk about ankle-biting! “We’re on this legal blog, but when you say this is new do you just mean there’s little addressing of it in the law?” Lol

[Michael P]

I can tell the difference between "not much precedent" and "new issue". And when someone continues to be unable to postulate a specific problem. You're the one who doesn't understand what is going on here.

[not guilty]

Michael P, what in blazes does Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence have to do with this state criminal prosecution?

Per Federal Rule 101(a), "(a) Scope. These rules apply to proceedings in United States courts. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply, along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101."

One very sound rule of legal analysis is: don't attempt it with your head up your ass.

FWIW, the relevant New York rule regarding expert testimony is here: https://nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/7-OPINION/7.01_Opinion_of_Expert_Witness.pdf New York's Rule 7.01 differs from the corresponding federal rules. The following commentary appears to be germane:

What distinguishes New York from other jurisdictions is its emphasis on opinion evidence being “necessary” to properly describe the subject matter. (See Ferguson v Hubbell, 97 NY 507, 514 [1884] [the rules admitting opinions of experts should not be unnecessarily extended]; Teerpenning v Corn Exch. Ins. Co., 43 NY 279, 281 [1871].) That “necessity” requirement in recent times appears subsumed by the requirement that the subject matter be beyond the knowledge or understanding of a typical juror or will dispel misconceptions a juror may hold and thereby help a juror to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. (People v Rivers, 18 NY3d 222, 228 [2011] [“ ‘The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror’ ”]; People v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 455-456 [2007] [“A court’s exercise of discretion depends largely on whether jurors, after the court considers their ‘day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge,’ would benefit from the specialized knowledge of an expert witness”]; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 422 [1986] [“Opinion testimony of an expert witness is admissible where the conclusions to be drawn ‘depend upon professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence’ ”]; People v Lee, 96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001] [“Despite the fact that jurors may be familiar from their own experience with factors relevant to the reliability of eyewitness observation and identification, it cannot be said that psychological studies regarding the accuracy of an identification are within the ken of the typical juror”].) In the end, it is for the trial court “to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness.” (People v Cronin, 60 NY2d at 433; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d at 422; People v Lee, 96 NY2d at 162.)

If legal analysis were so simple that an ignorant dilettante can do it, then highly skilled lawyers wouldn't get paid the big bucks.

[David Nieporent]

Mr. Uddin should have lived in Pakistan if he didn't want to face justice under a legal system that recognizes marital rape.

Without hearing the actual testimony and knowing the context I couldn't possibly form a definitive opinion, but I don't see how this would be admissible. Presumably nobody denied that sex took place, so the relevant jury question would be whether the woman consented. How would an expert testifying something along the lines of men from Pakistan liking submissive women help a jury determine that, let alone survive FRE 403?

But maybe the defendant said, "I would never do that; Islam forbids it," or something like that, in which case the testimony could well be admissible.

[not guilty]

I haven't done a deep dive here, but it appears that New York's Rule 7.01 regarding opinion testimony from an expert witness is pretty detailed. https://nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/7-OPINION/7.01_Opinion_of_Expert_Witness.pdf The initial threshold requirement appears to be:

(1) A person qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify to an opinion or information concerning scientific, technical, medical, or other specialized knowledge when:

(a) the subject matter is beyond the knowledge or understanding, or will dispel misconceptions, of a typical finder of fact; and
(b) the testimony will help the finder of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, especially when the facts cannot be stated or described in such a manner as to enable the finder of fact to form an accurate judgment about the subject matter.

Based solely on the WaPO reporting, (which of course may be incomplete,) I have difficulty seeing how such testimony would assist the jurors to form an accurate judgment about the subject matter. I also fail to see how it would not be excludable under Rule 4.06:

4.06. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would:

(1) create undue prejudice to a party;
(2) confuse the issues and mislead the jury;
(3) prolong the proceeding to an unreasonable extent without any corresponding advantage to the offering party; or
(4) unfairly surprise a party and no remedy other than exclusion could cure the prejudice caused by the surprise.

https://nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.06_EXCLUSION%20OF%20RELEVANT%20EVIDENCE.pdf

In addition, I can't see why the testimony would not be excludable under Rule 4.09 as inadmissible evidence of the bad character of the accused. https://nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.09_Character_Evidence+Proof.pdf

[jb]

"The WaPo commits malpractice by describing the jury's decision as "[a]fter hearing that expert testimony" unless that was the only evidence the jury was provided. I cannot imagine that even a NYC court would allow that as the only evidence for a trier of fact."

Michael P apparently lives in a universe where the progression of time is unpredictable and we don't know which events preceded other ones. Hard to explain the comment above otherwise, since with the physical laws of the universe the writers and editors that the Post live in, there's not actually a way to describe the verdict as coming before or contemporaneously as the testimony.

[Michael P]

I live in a universe where journalists shouldn't report only some of the preceding facts that are relevant to an outcome, especially when the omission is selective in service of a storyline they are trying to sell.

Your preferences obviously differ.

[Malika la Maize]

“journalists shouldn't report only some of the preceding facts that are relevant to an outcome”

Like…the ones…in the appeal…they are reporting about?

I mean, talk about lol, you’re like a guy complaining about a report of an impending decision on the Atkins appeal “they didn’t mention all the evidence about the robbery and murder!”

[Magister]

"After" does not mean "based solely on".

[Malika la Maize]

If you want to ankle-bite the source it does. Note the lengths the same guy goes to in defending the mad sayings of his wannabe king.

[Michael P]

After Magister started posting, the collective IQ of the forum dropped.

[Malika la Maize]

Another ipse dixit.

[jb]

The article is about how that testimony should be treated and therefore that's the focus of the early paragraphs. If you have the mental fortitude to read through the whole article there's more discussion about the specifics of the wife's testimony further in.

I imagine if they summarized all the facts of the trial the article would be extremely long and boring and not meaningfully more informative to the reader.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Mr. Uddin should have lived in Pakistan if he didn't want to face justice under a legal system that recognizes marital rape."

It's one thing to recognize marital rape, it's another to tell the jury that the filthy pakis are always doing marital rapes.

Or that black men's brains are too primitive to control themselves in the presence of white women.

Or that white men feel entitled to sexually enslave black women.

[John F. Carr]

I remember reading a case where the plaintiff's lawyer wanted to tell the jury that defendant rental car company was negligent for renting to a British driver. Those people are always driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Michael P]

I don't think the witness testified "that the filthy pakis are always doing marital rapes". Is there an argument that the defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel didn't object when the prosecutor asked whatever it was? The quotes in the article seem like thin gruel for arguing that the jury was prejudiced against the defendant by the testimony, especially given how finely people here are parsing the meaning of "after".

[Malika la Maize]

I don't think the witness testified "that the filthy pakis are always doing marital rapes"

Yeah, that’s just 12” being his usual leftist self. Just admit your position, there would be more dignity in it. It was collectivist claptrap. It was in this case about a group you’re probably not sympathetic too and posted by someone you don’t like, but *think* about the issues here before knee-jerk reacting.

[Michael P]

Take your inability to read, and your tendency to assign random ideas from your imagination to others, somewhere else.

[David Nieporent]

Mr. Uddin should have lived in Pakistan if he didn't want to face justice under a legal system that recognizes marital rape.

Or just arranged for Dr. Ed to be on his jury.

[not guilty]

"The WaPo commits malpractice by describing the jury's decision as '[a]fter hearing that expert testimony' unless that was the only evidence the jury was provided. I cannot imagine that even a NYC court would allow that as the only evidence for a trier of fact."

Epic fail. Of course the verdict occurred after the jury heard that expert testimony -- it occurred after hearing all testimony and other evidence, and nothing in the WaPo article suggests otherwise. The word "after" refers merely to the timeline. If the jury had rendered its verdict prior to hearing from all witnesses, that would have been problematic.

[DDHarriman]

Wait - they didn't assimilate? What the Jew is going on here?!?

[Frank Drackman]

You blow your boyfriend with that mouth?

[DDHarriman]

I want to go back to being e-friends. Will you like toss your Jew half a matza ball or a bagel or a nickel or a to rub it even a pally kid to murder or pally home to steal so it will shut up for awhile?

Don't give it any Christian kids. Blood sacrifices and rituals are barbaric.

[SRG2]

Frank: DDHarriman is merely you with a slightly different set of enemies.

[A Japanese Student]

Reminds me of that 2017 case. I assume the expert is on the prosecution's side this time?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes.

[Krayt]

They need some talking heads and advertisements to edumicate women that deferring to sex with your husband whenever he wants it is you honoring your religion, the same way as was done with hijabs, to shut down 1960s feminists who railed against them.

They voluntarily choose to do so!

[Magister]

So MAGA men and Islamic men have preferences for foreign wives in common.

as patriotic as I am I made a conscious decision that I wanted no part of marrying another American Woman

Not the only such commenter here.

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q can’t understand why you’re making this point, this was settled in the adoption of the current Federal Rules of Procedure!

[David Nieporent]

For the record, he is referring to the Federal Rules of Evidence. (There are no "Federal Rules of Procedure." There are Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but this thread is about evidence, not procedure.)

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, mea culpa there.

[not guilty]

"Mikie Q can’t understand why you’re making this point, this was settled in the adoption of the current Federal Rules of Procedure!"

This is a state criminal prosecution. The relevant rules here are the New York Rules of Evidence, which as to some rules that I have seen are more detailed than the Federal Rules of Evidence.

[Malika la Maize]

Jeffrey Singer, a drug policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said given Trump's pattern of leniency for some alleged drug criminals, he's skeptical that narcotics interdiction was a serious goal of Saturday's operation in Venezuela.

"If this is what's motivating [Trump], if it's stopping drug trafficking, why is he pardoning the Honduran president who was convicted of cocaine trafficking? It's never been about that," he said.

But Hernandez isn't an isolated case…. Previously, during his first term in the White House, Trump's administration also freed Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, Mexico's former Secretary of National Defense in 2020. Cienfuegos faced accusations in the U.S. of partnering closely with drug cartelsthat funneled vast amounts of drugs into the U.S.  

"There's a lot of mixed messages and mixed signals [from the White House] which creates sort of chaos and uncertainty," said Singer at the Cato Institute, in a May interview with NPR. "On the one hand you're threatening even tougher penalties on people who deal in drugs, while on the other hand you're releasing drug dealers from prisons."

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/03/nx-s1-5665695/maduro-trump-drug-dealer-pardons

[Joe_dallas]

A - The link is to NPR - A news organization that is notorious for leftwing reporting
B - Think you can name a few democrat presidents that pardoned significantly more drug dealers

[Malika la Maize]

A. It quotes largely from a right-leaning source.
B. Whataboutism especially irrelevant here (as Trump’s action here is being especially justified by being tough on narco state heads).

[Michael P]

Malicia yesterday: "If there’s one time when whatabout is useful and necessary it’s when someone is arguing an entire group is especially bad."

Malicia today: There are ackchyually lots of times that whatabout is useful and necessary! As long as you have TDS!

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, my comment today to jd was it *isn’t* relevant here.

You morning drinking?

[David Nieporent]

A. It quotes largely from a right-leaning source.

It does not.

[Magister]

Apparently you mean the Cato Institute; it is libertarian but widely considered right leaning for its economic conservatism. (The article also quotes Trump, Bondi and an expert from the Heritage Foundation, and from various DOJ statements from previous administrations which are mostly about people convicted of drug related crimes released by Trump.)

[David Nieporent]

I did mean Cato, which is only considered "right leaning" by people who cannot comprehend that where members of the French assembly sat in the 18th century are not reliably mappable to American politics. Libertarians are not "economically conservative." Just like we're not leftist when we support the nearly free movement of people across borders. We're libertarian on both fronts. (And others, of course.) Of course, the MAGA GOP isn't economically conservative either.

[Magister]

I don't care about the 18th century French assembly any more than I care that Republicans are now associated with red (because of the 2000 election, in contrast to earlier elections) after decades of red scaremongering. Libertarians are more likely to support Republicans than Democrats (because of fiscal conservatism and limited government). Charles Koch? Tea Party movement? Nominally non-partisan but in practice Republican supporting, however mildly.

[David Nieporent]

Even if those things were sufficient to compose libertarianism, there is nothing fiscally conservative or limited governmentish about the modern Republican party.

[Magister]

Never Trumper Republicans are still conservatives, and those get libertarian support while pretty much no king of Democrat does. Charles Koch, one of the founders of the Cato Institute, is still supporting Republicans; libertarians steadily believe that they will get better traction for their beliefs from Republicans.

(But it probably would have sufficed for Malika la Maize to simply say the linked article primarily quotes from a source that is not left-leaning.)

[bernard11]

JD remains the master of the non-responsive comment.

[David Nieporent]

A - The link is to NPR - A news organization that is notorious for leftwing reporting
B - Think you can name a few democrat presidents that pardoned significantly more drug dealers

A - Ad hominem.
B - Whatabout whatabout whatabout.

Is bookkeeper_joe ever capable of actually addressing a topic substantively? Ever?

(What makes it even more pathetic is that he's neither smart nor informed enough to actually come up with an actual whatabout, so he just raises the abstract possibility that there was one.)

[DDHarriman]

Who has two thumbs and likes the new "Donroe Doctrine"?

This guy.

[jb]

I think we can safely assume that in a few years this will be known as the Dumbroe Doctrine.

[DDHarriman]

Where is all the hyperventilating over Mandamis NAZI salute? After all he's a socialist too and has ideological affinity with them.

[hobie]

The Nazis were White Christian Nationalists, Harriman. You know, like Charlie. Not so much socialists. Socialism is what is employed in Skandinavia by prosperous Caucasians. According to them, they're pretty happy about things.

MNYSA - Make New York Skandinavian Again

[Michael P]

hobie is hallucinating the warmth of socialism right out of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

And Scandinavia is famously not very socialist (and not spelled with a "k", at least in English): https://mises.org/power-market/nordic-model-isnt-socialist-democratic-socialists-claim and https://insider.iea.org.uk/p/the-truth-about-scandinavian-socialism

In 2015, Denmark's then-PM Lars Rasmussen noted: "I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

[hobie]

Socialist was just in the moniker, Michael. Germany was a capitalist economy through and through. Just ask Volkswagen and Oskar Schindler.

You know, Michael, like everything, socialism has evolved. It's no longer the collectivist model from the 20th century that you desperately cling to.

It's public schools, hospitals, subways, police forces. You know...society banding together to help each other out.

[Michael P]

Volkswagen was founded by the Nazi Party under Hitler's orders to create an affordable car for workers. The firm never delivered on that because it was redirected to produce armaments instead. Most people wouldn't call that "capitalist" -- but it's very much the kind of socialism that Zhou Bai Den and other latter-day collectivists clamor for.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump ordered drug companies to lower their drug prices but that doesn’t make him a socialist.

In the 30’s the depression made capitalism not very popular and lots of people rushed to cash in on being “socialists” and for workers, like a lot of political movements they were often telling different groups what they thought they wanted to hear.

[Malika la Maize]

Btw-I’m no fan of socialism, you will seek in vain my support of Mandami. But it’s silly to try to shoehorn the NAZIs into leftist socialist atrocities, the NAZIs are not justly reviled because of Volkswagen, they’re reviled because of their xenophobic nationalism, chauvinism, bigotry, militarism and autocratic reactionary characteristics. It’s especially silly to try to shoehorn them because there’s plenty of murderous, ruinous examples of leftist socialism (USSR, Cuba, China, etc.,). But some people have to have a simplistic Manichean view of the world less they have to at times engage in retrospection. Mikie Q’s mantra of “no enemies to the right” is a perfect example.

[DDHarriman]

Happy Dalwahli!

[Malika la Maize]

Look at this idiot bigot.

He thinks a person can’t post an article saying favorable things about an ethnic group unless they are in that group.

Collectivist through and though (but ok in every way to MAGAns like Mikie Q, no enemies to the right and all).

[DDHarriman]

lol I can't even offer you well wishes in your culture without you getting all upset lmao -- what's the Hindi version of "Karen"?

[bernard11]

Volkswagen was founded by the Nazi Party under Hitler's orders to create an affordable car for workers. ..... it was redirected to produce armaments instead. Most people wouldn't call that "capitalist" -- but it's very much the kind of socialism that Zhou Bai Den and other latter-day collectivists clamor for.

This whole line of argument is silly. Yes, the German government took control of a lot of industry, because countries fighting a major war (especially on two fronts) tend to need a lot of war equipment and supplies. To argue that this means they were ideologically socialist is foolish.

Consider our own WWII War Production Board

The War Production Board (WPB) was an agency of the United States government that supervised war production during World War II.

The WPB directed conversion of companies engaged in activities relevant to war from peacetime work to war needs, allocated scarce materials, established priorities in the distribution of materials and services, and prohibited nonessential production.[3] It rationed such commodities as gasoline, heating oil, metals, rubber, paper,[4] and plastics.

In 1942–1945, WPB supervised the production of $183 billion (equivalent to $2.52 trillion in 2024.

Does this mean the US was socialist in more normal times?

[Michael P]

I think that effectively refutes a claim that the US "was a capitalist economy through and through" at the time. At least for those paying attention to more than a single comment.

The Nazis' National Socialist Program included items like these:
7. We demand that the state commit itself to providing, first and foremost, opportunities for its citizens to earn a living and make a life for themselves. [....]
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work, either mentally or physically. The activities of the individual must not conflict with the interests of the general public, but must be carried out within the framework of the whole and for the benefit of all. [...]
13. We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).
14. We demand that the profits of large companies shall be shared out.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the state, county or municipality. [....]
20. In order to enable every capable and hard-working German to attain higher education and thus enter into leading positions, the state must ensure the thorough expansion of our entire public education system. [....]

Public schools are socialism, or so I am told, so that must seal the deal even if we ignore the nationalization and similar bits.

[DDHarriman]

They tried to coopt all public services as socialism. Government schools made them that dumb on purpose.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, if the NAZIs officially said it it must be the truth. NK is Democratic after all!

[DDHarriman]

And their actions. Don't forget their anti-capitalist actions.

But I guess you could, like you're doing now, ignore how they identify themselves, the beliefs they espouse, the words they say and the actions they took.

If you exclude all those things, their identity, their beliefs, their words and their actions, you'd have a great point about them not being Socialists!

P.S.
>ignore how they identify themselves, the beliefs they espouse, the words they say and the actions they took.

kinda like how you do with trannies to claim they are real women. lol I'm detecting a pattern among the Left... or is this just a pajeet trait?

[jb]

Hey Michael P, while we're doing history lessons, remind us of who Hitler blamed the burning of the Reichstag on again.

[David Nieporent]

Sleepy Joe, probably.

[Michael P]

I don't know about Hitler personally, but I understand that the Nazis overall blamed it on communists, and historians generally think that is correct. There has always been a lot of infighting amongst hardcore socialists: Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks vs Trotskyites vs whatever else, as an intra-Russian example.

[Michael P]

(This, along with hobie's use of the Big Lie, demonstrates that socialism has evolved much, much less than he claims. Public schools, hospitals, subways and police forces existed before socialism was a thing. The technology of railroads postdates socialism, but public transportation systems don't, dating back to Blaise Pascal in the 1660s.)

[hobie]

Regardless when they happened, those institutions are socialism. That they occurred before there was a name for it doesn't matter.

Are you against the police, schools and busses, Michael?

[Michael P]

By that logic, socialism also includes farms and markets to match food and other goods with consumers. Are you against markets, hobie?

[Malika la Maize]

Farms run by governments are socialism, yes.

[hobie]

↑ yes, try and digest what Malika has said ↑

[Malika la Maize]

I mean that’s the whole collectives thing.

[hobie]

At this point - once again - it's down to Michael blinking rapidly in incomprehension. He's absolutely certain socialism is what Rush Limbaugh told him it was. Let's give him a minute.

[DDHarriman]

Socialism is about who owns the means of production.

Not public services.

How are you that stupid? Did you lower your IQ by osmosis?

[hobie]

I mean, I don't have kids, yet I think its a good idea to have paid my taxes so that your brats can get educated. It's better for me and the world that your brats are not ignoramuses out roaming the streets.

[Malika la Maize]

Mickie Q also thinks North Korea is a Democratic Republic, I guess.

[jb]

East Germany was apparently super democratic too, if we want to use an example a little closer to the Nazis.

Not surprising, though. Michael P will fall for just about any propaganda he sees.

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 2 hours ago
"The Nazis were White Christian Nationalists,"

Is that why Hilter had the Bibles replaced with Mein Kampf in the German churches?

[Krayt]

His statement reminds me of the first Star Wars sequel, where the director tweeted something like, "Remember, the Empire is a humans only fascist organization, wink, this means you white men", who stupidly fancied themselves the grandkids of massive numbers of people who killed and defeated Nazis.

Everything, around the world, and throughout history, must be twisted and recast for contemporary American politics.

There's only one force powerful enough to justify this, and it's completely soulless.

Fundamental Theorm of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, I don’t think the Nazis can be characterized as Christian. White nationalism checks out though.

[ThePublius]

White national socialists.

[Malika la Maize]

You know this has been addressed in this conversation already, right?

[David Nieporent]

Hitler did not, in fact, have the "the Bibles replaced with Mein Kampf in the German churches." One of Hitler's flunkies came up with a proposal to do so; Hitler himself did not, and it was never implemented.

[hobie]

Wood is a signature of a very specific chain of events. You need stars to make carbon, a planet with liquid water, an atmosphere that lets light through, life that can photosynthesize, oxygen to allow lignin to form, and millions of years of stability for trees to grow tall and dense. Miss any step and wood never appears.

Out in the universe, carbon is everywhere. Light is everywhere. Even water is everywhere. But the slow biological machinery that turns sunlight into forests seems vanishingly rare. A diamond can form in darkness under crushing pressure. Diamonds are actually common in the universe, forming naturally around dying stars and inside giant planets. Gold is also widespread, forged in supernovae and neutron star collisions. Wood, however, needs a living world that has learned how to harvest starlight.

That makes a piece of wood one of the most unlikely materials we know. Not precious because it’s hard or shiny, but because it represents a planet where life didn’t just survive, it flourished long enough to grow roots, rings, and time itself into matter.

So we too should all acknowledge the miracles that are Frankie Drackman and Donald Trump.

[Krayt]

Niven's Ringworld proposes luck is genetically bred into humans, as the one of millions and billions of sperm that actually closed the deal was very lucky, and so, too, for your parents, and their parents, and so on. You are (insanely lucky) to the power of tens of thousands of ancestors and generations.

I've grown tired, even sarcastically, of giving thanks for the plagues from all sides. The Bible even says the leaders above you were appointed by God, so listen to them.

Yeahhhhhh.

[SRG2]

FWIW ring worlds, like Dyson spheres, are unstable - the star will drift from the centre. Niven didn't know this when he wrote Ringworld, but he retrofixed the problem later.

[Michael P]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/venezuelan-vice-president-delcy-rodriguez-155200060.html

Venezuela's vice president gave a defiant statement hours after Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured, ascribing a "zionist tint" to the action.

Is that one of our resident "anti-Zionist" commenters speaking?

I do have to admit, though, that the operational security, thorough planning, excellent preparation and casualty-free success do remind one of the competence of Israel special force operations.

[Malika la Maize]

I thought Trump said she was fully on board.

[hobie]

Sigh. You have a country were at least half the population and its military support and are loyal to Maduro. You also have the guerilla FARC roaming the country.

So yeah, like Israel, you're going to have bomb the country back to the stone age to pacify it. You'll see.

[Michael P]

You remember that Maduro pulled something like 30% support in the 2024 election, right? Even under hobie math, that's less than half the population.

And FARC.. FARC.. the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which essentially dissolved in 2017 in a negotiated disarmament.. which part of Venezuela is Colombia again?

[hobie]

I'll grant you one thing, Michael. Unlike the middle east or Vietnam, the Venezuelans are not typically radicals. All Latin cultures across the world are steeped in fatalism. In theory, it should be a compliant population. Again, we shall see.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s far too generalized and also I don’t think true (you don’t think the ME has strains of fatalism?).

[Michael P]

hobie is so dedicated to being wrong that he won't grant either that Colombia is a different country than Venezuela, or that FARC disarmed in 2017.

Sad.

[hobie]

Who do you think is funneling the puny amounts of drugs through Venezuela? It ain't the Venezuelans

[Estragon]

FARC is definitely in the indictment…

[Michael P]

The usual name in the US is the Cartel de los Soles / Cartel of the Suns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela says very little about FARC helping channel Venezuelan drugs, but says Venezuela's government bought drugs from FARC decades ago, makes it clear Chavez was buddies with them and, relates that Maduro's government (and their relatives, like the nephews of Maduro's wife) smuggles plenty of drugs on its own.

[Malika la Maize]

“That indictment alleged Maduro was the leader of the Cartel de los Soles, and that he and other defendants took part in a narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Colombian guerrilla group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).”

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/03/nx-s1-5665695/maduro-trump-drug-dealer-pardons

[Malika la Maize]

Between 2012 and 2016, the Venezuelan government played an important role as one of five guarantors in Colombia’s peace negotiations with the FARC, which concluded with the rebels demobilizing in 2017. However, Venezuela also become a refuge for FARC dissidents who refused to participate in the demobilization. Initially scattered and disorganized, these dissidents have regrouped and grown in number as the implementation of the accords faltered and their ranks have been bolstered by disillusioned former FARC members, forming what InSight Crime collectively refers to as the ex-FARC Mafia.

There are now several different ex-FARC Mafia factions present in Venezuela. The state of Apure acts as headquarters for the Second Marquetalia, an ex-FARC network formed by some of the main FARC negotiators in the peace talks, who abandoned the process in 2018. This network is allied to the Acacio Medina Front. Also present in Venezuela are the 10th Front and the 33rd Front, both of which are smaller, semi-autonomous groups that are part of the biggest ex-FARC Mafia network in Colombia, which is coordinated by Miguel Botache Santillana, alias “Gentil Duarte.”

Just as was the case during the Colombian conflict, Venezuela continues to offer the ex-FARC a safe haven and access to important criminal economies, above all drug trafficking but also illegal mining and contraband smuggling. In many cases, these networks have also maintained the FARC’s alliances with corrupt security forces and political actors, allegedly including senior figures in the regime of Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro.

https://insightcrime.org/venezuela-organized-crime-news/farc-in-venezuela/#:~:text=Initially%20scattered%20and%20disorganized%2C%20these,illegal%20mining%20and%20contraband%20smuggling.

[Michael P]

So in place of "the guerilla FARC roaming the country", you have organized crime involving ex-FARC members. Nice goalpost move.

[Malika la Maize]

How pathetic is that? They’re not FARC, they’re ex-FARC!

Just admit you were wrong when you leaped on your high horse (side saddle of course) to call hobie a fool for suggesting FARC was roaming Venezuela.

“Ur, uh, they’re ex-FARC technically!!”

Pathetic

[Michael P]

By that logic, Democrats are still the party of the Confederacy and the KKK. Once a member, always a member.

You made that bed, now lie in it.

[Kazinski]

I think Venezuela, even Maduro loyalists will cooperate because its the quickest way to get the US out.

I think the US occupation of Panama should give everyone a blueprint of what to expect:

"The U.S. invasion of Panama to depose Manuel Noriega, Operation Just Cause, began December 20, 1989, with Noriega surrendering January 3, 1990, meaning the main military action lasted about two weeks, though the occupation and stabilization lasted over a month, until late January 1990, when the new government was fully established."

It would be mice if the OAS helped with election organization and monitoring, and of course facilitating voting for the millions of Venezuelan refugees in Volumbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, etc.

[Josh R]

From what I can tell, Trump doesn't care if elections happen or not. In his transactional world, he wants Venezuela to reopen the oil markets. At this point it appears he is using the fear caused by removing Maduro and the American military to get his way. We should expect the same in Cuba, Greenland and other places in the Western Hemisphere. It's disgusting, but so long as Americans aren't dying he won't pay a political price.

As far as the UN and OAS, this ditty tells the tale.

[Estragon]

“That means they are owned by people who have stock, mutual funds that hold them, pension funds that hold them, IRAs and 401ks, and so on.

What is the purpose of the government if not to protect the interests of its citizens, particularly property interests?”

Got that? It’s not a law enforcement operation— we are risking the lives of our young men and women for certain people’s 401(k)s. Turns out in MAGA land “thank you for your service” actually means “thank you for servicing my stock portfolio.”
Of course, the Americans who don’t happen to hold ConocoPhillips shares are not mentioned, for obvious reasons. So too with the foreigners who own said shares. Did you know that close to 20% of US equities are held by foreigners? It just strikes me as an odd justification for risking getting our young people killed. But less and less about MAGA makes sense to me these days.

[Malika la Maize]

They’re going to throw a lot on the wall to see what might stick.

[ThePublius]

You're taking what I said way out of context. I didn't once say that this was the government's purpose of snatching Maduro. I said it was what I hope will happen.

And, law enforcement routinely risks safety and life to protect private property.

And you still can't admit that you were completely wrong saying they were protecting private companies.

[Estragon]

Yes. You are justifying the invasion of a foreign country on the basis of vindicating the interests of oil companies. It’ll be good for your 401k! How nice for you. It just strikes me as an odd use for our military, what with the risk of getting young men and women killed. Let just say I’d be somewhat upset if my child was killed in Venezuela in service of protecting shareholder value for “people who have stock.” Unless you view our paramount national interest as identical and coextensive with the interests of ConocoPhillips shareholders. There’s a word for that, it’s on the tip of my tongue.

And by the way, the interests of ConocoPhillips shareholders— you know, the individuals who hold the shares (not all Americans!)— can indeed be characterized as “private” when viewed in contrast to the public national interest for the very obvious reason that not every American holds oil company shares. That those shares are publicly traded is apparent from your original comment, so I’m not sure why that distinction is relevant. You may attempt to explain that below:

[ThePublius]

That's a very weasely way of distancing yourself from your mistaken remark. Oh, yea, I get it, since stock is privately held that makes public companies private companies. Now I get it. /sarc

If your car is stolen does law enforcement go after the thief, perhaps risking their lives during the encounter, in an effort to recover your property? Or do you just tell them, 'nah, let 'em keep it?'

What if a foreign country seizes a car manufacturing plant? A chemical plant? A clothing factory? Who's supposed to protect them?

[Estragon]

They’re supposed to do what Chevron did. Or not invest in operations in risky foreign jurisdictions.

You are advocating the use of our military to protect the interests of a small subset of Americans (and foreigners too!). The military is here to protect all of us— the citizens, the nation— not “people who have stock” or people who own chemical plants and factories abroad. That is why the distinction between “public” and “private” interests is relevant. It has nothing to do with whether the shares of the oil companies are publicly traded.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to think you are justifying your position by implying I don’t understand the difference between various forms of corporate structure— or didn’t realize that Chevron and ConocoPhillips are publicly traded— I guess you can go ahead and knock yourself out with that.

[Estragon]

To further illustrate my point, here is an example.

Recently, X (formerly Twitter) has run into some legal problems in Brazil. Shareholder value has been negatively impacted. One commentator here actually advocated for the assassination of Brazilian judges in response to adverse court rulings.

Would you support the use of the military to invade Brazil to vindicate the interests of X shareholders? After all— “who’s supposed to protect them?”

What would you say to the parent of someone killed invading Brazil for X shareholders? How do you think that parent would feel— particularly if he or she didn’t happen to hold X shares?

[Magister]

Obviously those parents should have been rich enough that their children joining the military would not be economically necessary, and then taught their children that members of the military are suckers and losers. And, if necessary, paying for a false diagnosis of bone spurs to avoid any military conscription. If they didn't have the foresight to become rich, unpatriotic and corrupt, then it's their own fault.

[David Nieporent]

One commentator here actually advocated for the assassination of Brazilian judges in response to adverse court rulings.

Was it Dr. Ed? Because that is totally a Dr. Ed thing to do.

[Estragon]

“Boomers and half of Gen X will cheer on neocon wars and talking points”

I have my issues with Marge, as any right-thinking person should, but wowza this comment section is really proving her right today.

[Malika la Maize]

As is often the case, Massie succinctly characterizes the ridiculous attempts to legally justify Trump’s Venezuela action:

AG and others legally characterize attack in Venezuela as “arrest with military support.”

Meanwhile Trump announces he’s taken over the country and will run it until he finds someone suitable to replace him.

Added bonus: says American oil companies will get to exploit the oil.

https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/2007497184363851978

[hobie]

Trump finally got his Putin merit badge. Putin made the mistake of attacking The Beast. Trump just TACO's the tough guys. American cities and sleepy latin backwaters are so much easier to attack.

[ThePublius]

"Added bonus: says American oil companies will get to exploit the oil."

No, it's that American-based companies whose assets in Venezuela were stolen under Pérez in 1976 and Chavez in 2007 may eventually gain access back to those and related assets.

This 'going to war for oil' crap is the same bullshit you all pulled on GWB in the gulf wars. Where is all that oil, by the way, that we never took?

[Estragon]

“We should have kept the oil.”

[ThePublius]

Who are you quoting?

[Estragon]

Oh come on. You can’t guess this one?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q7oT_wL1C84

[Randal]

No, it's that American-based companies whose assets in Venezuela were stolen under Pérez in 1976 and Chavez in 2007 may eventually gain access back to those and related assets.

Hahaha that's hysterical. You'll believe anything, I see. What a maroon.

At least this locks up the midterms for Democrats... possibly even putting the Senate in play.

[Mr. Bumble]

Late to the party. Has any federal judge ordered Maduro returned to Venezuela yet?
Asking for a friend.

[Estragon]

Anyone crunched the numbers on the 100 million deportations DHS was talking about the other day? That seems like a pretty high number, unless we’re denaturalizing a lot of citizens. Perhaps this is related to the “Heritage Americans” we’ve all of a sudden started hearing so much about around here.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose you could hit a hundred million deportations... if you had 20-30 years of people illegally immigrating and being deported. If they're talking by 2029, I can't see the number topping 15-20 million.

[Estragon]

So to hit that number in this administration, we’re looking at denaturalizing and deporting about 80 million people?

[David Nieporent]

Presumably some of the victims would be lawful residents who aren't citizens (e.g., green card holders), so they wouldn't all need to be denaturalized.

[Randal]

I just assume everything they say is made up on the spot to sound good to the maggots and has no discoverable basis in reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume most of it is made up to send TDS victims into a tizzy. Trump likes to keep his foes so wound up they can't think straight.

[Randal]

Yes, also that.

[Malika la Maize]

Isn’t that troubling in a POTUS? “He says crazy, indefensible things, but he’s just hoping to rile up a bunch of the people he serves!”

[Randal]

To be honest, all my life I've wondered why presidents didn't behave more like Trump in this particular way. For all his many, many (many) faults, he's set a new high-water mark for in-the-moment communication. He's not going to have any Gettysburg Addresses, obviously, but he's really good at driving and responding to the news cycle to his short-term political advantage.

[Josh R]

I'm not so sure it's to his advantage, short-term or otherwise. But, he is the best in my memory (since LBJ) at giving access to the press (*) and honestly answering without any filters.

(*) He has excluded some of the press in favor of sycophants, but enough remain of the serious press to elicit what's on his mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, some of the excluded amounted to anti-sycophants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, OF COURSE it's troubling in a President. I find Trump frankly embarrassing. He's never been my favorite in the primaries, (I didn't even bother voting in the Republican primaries in 2024, because DeSantis dropped out before my state.) and has gotten my vote twice only as the lesser of two evils, and I DO mean evils.

I absolutely hate that the major parties have degenerated to the point where the Republicans would nominate a Trump rather than a Paul or DeSantis. And I'm not very happy that the Democrats can be relied on to nominate somebody who's actually WORSE than a Trump.

I'm hoping that this is only a temporary state of affairs, as the old establishment is ousted from power in both parties. Hoping, not expecting.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all know. You don't like Trump, you'll just defend everything he does.
And blame the liberals everywhere including the GOP for most of it, to boot.

[not guilty]

Brett, you are a rank partisan -- emphasis on the "rank." Own it.

Like Justice Potter Stewart said of hard core pornography in his concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio,378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964), I know hard core partisanship when I see it.

[hobie]

Cheer up, hayseeds. You now have an entire country to be an Alligator Alcatraz where you can send all the brownies. You'll be able to torment them or make them disappear and no one will ever know.

[hobie]

Think of it as a gigantic Gitmo - an extrajudicial sphere beyond US laws where you can build all the Trump-envied El Salvadorian CECOT-style torture palaces you want and make the brownies lament and disappear.

[ThePublius]

One fortunate side effect of the Maduro arrest is that we find out who's aligned with Venezuelan cartels and dictators, and who's not. People are partying in the streets in Caracas, while protesters (funded in some cases by Chinese-funded NGOs) in New York and Portland and elsewhere are calling for Maduro to be returned to power.

So, "I was told the problem was that we were killing narcoterrorists rather than using force to detain and prosecute them.

Turns out detaining and prosecuting them wasn’t acceptable either."

You people don't have principles or philosophy, you only have opposition. Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against. It literally doesn't matter what it is or how its done.

[Malika la Maize]

“protesters (funded in some cases by Chinese-funded NGOs) in New York and Portland and elsewhere are calling for Maduro to be returned to power.”

Citation?

And, come on, you can’t see some other ways that what happened here might be objected to that’s different than the boat strikes other than that Maduro was not killed? That’s got to be disingenuous.

[ThePublius]

The “Hands Off Venezuela” protest taking place in New York City supporting Nicolas Maduro is being organized by ‘The People’s Forum’

The People’s Forum is a NGO that has received over $20 million dollars from a billionaire who lives in China with ties to the CCP

The NGOs primary funding over $20 million Neville Roy Singham

- Singham’s residence in Shanghai.
- His business ties are to the CCP
- He attends CCP-related events
- He funds media outlets echoing Chinese state narratives

[Malika la Maize]

Again, what’s your source for that claim (which doesn’t completely support your first claims).

[Brett Bellmore]

The People's Forum post on X, Dec 21, 2021

"For months we’ve been the target of a campaign that alleges our funding comes from “dark money”

A few years ago we met Roy Singham, a Marxist comrade who sold his company & donated most of his wealth to non-profits that focus on political education, culture & internationalism."

Chairman Smith Exposes U.S. Nonprofit as Likely CCP-Funded Propaganda Arm Operating Under Tax-Exempt Status

"Chairman Jason Smith wrote, “On December 21, 2021, the People’s Forum posted on X, formerly Twitter, admitting to receiving funding from Neville Roy Singham, a former United States technology mogul who now resides in Shanghai and is closely aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). Public reporting suggests that The People’s Forum has received over $20 million from Mr. Singham and his wife, Jodie Evans, the co-founder of CODEPINK, between 2017 and 2022 through shell companies and donor-advised funds. Multiple reports have found that The People’s Forum is part of Mr. Singham’s network of non-profit organizations that serve as his conduits to spread pro-CCP narratives.”"

[Michael P]

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-peoples-forum/ quotes their Twitter account: "A few years ago we met Roy Singham, a Marxist comrade who sold his company & donated most of his wealth to non-profits that focus on political education, culture & internationalism." It provides further details about Singham's CCP ties, as does Wikipedia's page on him, such as this:

In August 2023, The New York Times reported that Singham works closely with the Chinese government and state media, and donates to various groups, news organizations and entities through non-profit groups and shell companies which spread pro-Chinese government messages.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure whether Malika doubts that CCP aligned donors fund organizations in the US, (Which is pretty firmly established.) or simply objects to the idea that there's anything wrong with it.

[jb]

I mean, the. Russians got to help make Trump President. Not sure why you'd be mad at China sponsoring a protest or two.

[Michael P]

The US indicted Russians for acting as unregistered agents, raided homes and businesses, shut down at least one US company, and imposed new sanctions in response to those influence operations. Should we apply the same tactics to Chinese pawns?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes. That shit should be shut down.

[David Nieporent]

Careful! Michael P's question was trying to trick you. An existing organization getting a donation from a foreigner is not the same thing as acting as an agent of that foreigner. (Actually, Singham isn't even a foreigner!)

[Michael P]

Singham can still be an unregistered agent of the Chinese government. So can his proxies. TPF's description of him suggests that he feels some fealty towards his country of residence (China).

And conversely, the influencers in that 2024 case were not Russian agents, which is why the Biden administration never claimed they were. As far as I can tell, the Biden administration never even took that case to trial.

[jb]

Sure, if the Chinese are doing comparably illegal things they should face the same consequences.

[Malika la Maize]

How do you get to that conclusion from my asking for a source for that claim from him?

[Randal]

Who cares about "The People's Forum?" Is this some new form of propaganda-picking?

Remember when we found out that all the right-wing influencers were being paid by Russia? Note how your accusations are entirely unlike that case. You found one foreign-influence operation and are calling it "you people." You people are deranged.

Us people don't give a shit about Maduro, good riddance. We're just noticing how quickly "America First" has slipped into "Iraq II." We don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan... this time with even less moral authority.(Venezuela hasn't done anything particularly bad, Trump just wants to look strong and steal oil, he's said so himself. And we have zero allies.)

[Michael P]

Remember when we found out that all the right-wing influencers were being paid by Russia?

No, because we didn't find out anything of the sort. There was one small company involving six influencers, of whom only one or two have been very big. They're accused of taking half as much money as The People's Forum got -- noting that TPF is only a small part of the CCP's influence machine -- and the most specific accusation about content was that the Russians involved requested some pro-Russian propaganda. In one case, implying some mishap in Moscow was Ukraine's fault, in another plugging a Russian coin-op cart. Apparently nothing came off the former, and the latter was explicitly rejected as "blatant shilling".

Russia's investment was an awful one, but there are useful idiots turning out in force to support CCP's Venezuelan proxy.

[Magister]

That second sentence sounds exactly like something of the sort. Of course Tenet Media was only a small part of Russia's influence machine; there were all the people around Donald Trump as well.

[Michael P]

No, there weren't.

[Magister]

Going for the Joe_dallas "Nuh uh!" denial gambit?

Just the people around Donald Trump who were convicted because of their support for Russian influence: Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, Stone. Tip of the iceberg.

[Michael P]

No, all of them were convicted because of their support for Donald Trump. He is not Russia.

[Magister]

All prosecutions took place during the first Trump administration, and the laws they violated were all related to promoting Russian influence, which was largely in support of Donald Trump. Trump underbussed a lot of his supporters, but pardoned many later.

[Michael P]

You continue to lie. None of their convictions were for acting as foreign agents or promoting Russian influence.

[Magister]

Is your rage feeding your delusion, or is your delusion feeding your rage? Chicken and egg, I expect.

[Michael P]

Magister quadruples down, unable to back up anything close to his slanderous lies.

[Magister]

I already proved my point; you responded with denial and your usual rage and nothing more.

[Michael P]

You only proved that you don't have anything to support your slander.

[Magister]

Michael P, angry and dishonest.

[Michael P]

All it would take is you showing that any of those people provided "support for Russian influence". You haven't, because you can't.

[Randal]

All it would take is you showing that any of those people provided "support for Russian influence".

Uh, Flynn was a paid Russian mouthpiece. What are you talking about.

[jb]

"You people don't have principles or philosophy, you only have opposition. Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against. It literally doesn't matter what it is or how its done."

You really think the only alternative to blowing up boats in international waters is invading other countries and deposing their leaders? Hear me out on this one: maybe both of those things are actually bad and would still be bad regardless of who was doing it.

Speaking of no principles, though, I thought Trump ran on an agenda of not getting the US military involved with other countries. And yet here you and the rest of MAGA is telling us how great his latest military intervention is. It's like the thing you're staring in a mirror making your accusations.

It's actually been funny in a depressing way to see the MAGA reaction over the last day. At first you had some folks like Mike Lee and Kazinski make some noise about how this might be bad (since, as mentioned above, it's basically the opposite of Trump's platform that they thought they were supporting). But we had a few hours to get party discipline and talking points in order and now everyone is fully back on the Trump Train.

[DDHarriman]

> I thought Trump ran on an agenda of not getting the US military involved with other countries.

... on behalf of other countries and other agendas. That we've suffered for the past generation.

This is an America First operation that serves Americans. Unlike all these others that serve foreign interests and line politicians pocketbooks.

[Malika la Maize]

This is hilarious. He decried foreign adventurism for years but here is like “this regime change is totes different!”

[DDHarriman]

Are you registered with FARA as a stinky pajeet agent?

[jb]

Maybe you can elaborate on how it serves Americans in ways that, e.g., the wars in Iraq did not.

[jb]

Oh, here's one way it's helping white Americans: a bunch of people got to extend their Caribbean vacations when their flights were cancelled!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2026/01/03/flights-puerto-rico-grounded/88006714007/

Citizens of other countries didn't get the same "benefit" because the flight ban apparently only applied to US carriers.

[Malika la Maize]

Ok, so thanks to Brett and Mikie Q some links have been supplied (what kind of “plagiarism police” are you not to supply them?).

So, The People’s Forum is funded by the CCP and is holding a pro-Maduro rally.

How does that support this:

You people don't have principles or philosophy, you only have opposition. Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against.

[Randal]

Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against.

You just got confused by some Chinese propaganda, it sounds like. From what I've seen, everyone on the left is happy to see Maduro out of power.

I'm also happy to see that America First has been abandoned and we're back to interventionist democracy-spreading and nation-building... even if limited (for now) to the western hemisphere. Semi-globalism.

(I'm nervous that a return to the "spheres-of-influence" model portends Cold War II, but still it's better than a return to isolationism.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against. It literally doesn't matter what it is or how it’s done.”

Yeah pretty much. But you’re making the mistake it has nothing to do with principles or philosophy. On the contrary it has everything to do with my principles and philosophy. Overall, the American right-wing, especially Trump, has incredibly shitty values and ideas. So of course I’m going to totally oppose what they’re doing: it’s almost always a bad thing done for a bad reason. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt! And this is a PRIME example of it: they killed 40 people to take out the president of Venezuela, without an apparent plan on what to do next. At best it appears they’re going to keep the ruling regime in power as some kind of puppet state in exchange for oil and screw the pro-democracy opposition over.

No shit I’m going to oppose that. What kind of principled liberal wouldn’t oppose such bare resource imperialism that doesn’t even pretend to be about liberal principles?

[David Nieporent]

So, "I was told the problem was that we were killing narcoterrorists rather than using force to detain and prosecute them.

Turns out detaining and prosecuting them wasn’t acceptable either."

"You objected when the accused rapist was lynched… but you also objected when the cops burned down your house, where the accused rapist was staying, so they could arrest him! Make up your mind!"

[not guilty]

So, "I was told the problem was that we were killing narcoterrorists rather than using force to detain and prosecute them.

Turns out detaining and prosecuting them wasn’t acceptable either."

You people don't have principles or philosophy, you only have opposition. Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against. It literally doesn't matter what it is or how its done.

Au contraire. Provided he receives the full range of due process to which any criminal defendant is entitled, I have no problem with prosecuting Maduro in an American federal court. And if President Doofus had complied with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I would not have a problem with the use of American military forces to capture Maduro.

As it is, though, we are more than four months into hostilities with Venezuela. Trump's acting without securing authorization for use of military force from Congress is an impeachable offense. That state of affairs will be exacerbated if Trump puts boots on the ground in Venezuela without Congressional authorization.

The War Powers Resolution came about in response to Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon abusing their power in Southeast Asia. Especially Prick Nixon's widening the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia -- Johnson at least proposed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to Congress (however fraudulently he may have done so).

Nicolás Maduro is a thug and a jackass. So is Donald Trump. If both were drowning and I had only one life preserver to throw, I would have a difficult dilemma regarding whether to save either one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The early response to the Venezuela news yesterday included concern from Senator Mike Lee.

Then, he was reassured by Rubio that all was well. The person who cited Lee on the open thread suggested impeachment was appropriate. Soon, the person went on to other things, including (after a few hours) how impeachment was unlikely anyway.

One person who finds Trump quite unpleasant tried to look on the bright side. We shouldn't take Trump's "senile" ramblings seriously. Perhaps, this includes his references to the "Donroe Doctrine."

"The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot," Trump said during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, in the wake of the U.S.'s extensive operations against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in the early hours of Saturday. "They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine.'"

"We sort of forgot about it — it was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore," the President added. "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."

[Newsweek article. If anyone knows a good website that posts the transcripts of his remarks, let me know. The Biden White House regularly posted his remarks. The Trump White House went another way, for whatever reason.]

Multiple Democratic senators noted how the Administration lied to them during official meetings regarding the situation in Venezuela.

One senator noted that from now on, he will just assume they were lying to them. As one commenter on this blog notes, "they lie." As one Supreme Court case noted in another context, "lying is their habit."

Another approach is "whatabout," putting aside, even given the limited value of that approach, that the precedents regularly are far from overlapping. Anyway, as both Jack Goldsmith and Steve Vladeck said in their own ways, the events are horrible.

We need a better way & changes should be made to make it so. That seems impossible, at least in the short term, but history suggests change does happen.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/183402812

[ducksalad]

One person who finds Trump quite unpleasant tried to look on the bright side. We shouldn't take Trump's "senile" ramblings seriously.

I said maybe. Are we not allowed some hope that it won't be Iraq II?

Anyway, if you think I'm some kind of pretend Trump opponent, well, you've got the right to be wrong.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

if you think I'm some kind of pretend Trump opponent

I said you found him quite unpleasant. From this, you are worried, I think you are a "pretend opponent? That is not the same thing as worrying that your response is somewhat off. And not on a one-off level. I'm open to optimistic spin, but at some point it's unrealistic.

Are we not allowed some hope that it won't be Iraq II?

It doesn't need to be "Iraq II" to be bad.

We are allowed to hope, it's free and all, and even reasonable in this case to that degree. FWIW.

History warrants, however, that the long-term effects will be problematic. Including the families of the people who were killed.

"Senile ramblings" aside, bad things will happen, and the remarks of the other non-senile-sounding people weren't great either.

And, Trump being "senile" is not "bright side' material either way on a basic level for various reasons.

[David Nieporent]

"The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot," Trump said during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, in the wake of the U.S.'s extensive operations against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in the early hours of Saturday. "They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine.'"

Educated people actually call it the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It was TR who extended it from "Others need to stay out of the Western Hemisphere" to "But we have the right to do whatever we want in the Western Hemisphere."

This is very much of a piece with Trump's view on Ukraine. He views the world in terms of spheres of influence. Eastern Europe and the former soviet union are rightfully subject to Russia; East Asia is rightfully subject to China, and the Western Hemisphere is ours.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

lol, no. Helping Ukraine made us energy dominant…who cares where it is on the globe when we have aircraft that can get civilians to the other side of the earth in 13 hours?? That said, Trump wisely surrendered to the Taliban because the war no longer served our interests…but America First dictated we invade Afghanistan even though it was on the other side of the globe because that’s where the AQ camps and OBL were.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Roosevelt Corollary

Also recognized by Dave Barry, who summarized the current tenets of the Monroe Doctrine in Dave Barry Slept Here:

1. Other nations are not allowed to mess around with the internal affairs of nations in this hemisphere.

2. But we are.

3. Ha ha.

[Magister]

Trump's spheres of influence are curiously close to George Orwell's political geography in 1984, mostly lacking just giving up the European Union to Russia.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

A lot of that nonsense was Republicans trying to come up with reasons to not continue helping Ukraine because Biden was managing it optimally and BDS made Republicans adopt asinine positions.

“Spheres of influence” is an outdated concept but a real concern is a migrant crisis occurring near prosperous countries that the prosperous country is then forced to deal with. If Rubio could get Cuba and Venezuela to have growing economies those two countries would then become magnets for asylum seekers and it would greatly benefit America because Spanish speaking asylum seekers wouldn’t come here.

[Kazinski]

I still think impeachment would be justified, there wasn't any constitutional justification for it.

Did I think there was any realistic possibility it would happen?

No. Just like there were never impeachments when the US invaded Honduras or Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Mexico in 1903, 1907, 1912,1914, 1919, 1924, 1925, 1983, 1989), and now Venezuela 2026.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Tampa won but still needs the Falcons to lose to eke into the playoffs. If not, the Panthers will sneak in. The Panthers still have some bite left in them, and an upset may be in the works if they manage to get in. Tampa also had some life early in the season.

Seattle won the night game in a low-scoring game. The game shows that even top seeds are not free from possible upsets.

The other games today are largely about seeding, except for tonight's game. A Raiders loss also will mean they get the first pick.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, the Hawks were determined as the first seed by the win but I get your point. The Steeler Ravens game today will determine a playoff entry and 4th seed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think Seattle is at risk of being knocked off during the playoffs.

A takeaway near the goal line prevented it from being a three-point game, and missing two field goals like that isn't great.

They also play with fire with all those slow starts.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, absolutely. This season demonstrates that on Any Given Sunday anyone can win.

[Mr. Bumble]

Same as always.
It's why they play the game.

[Kazinski]

Everyone is at risk, but the Seahawks are the most complete team out there.

[Bunny495]

Not the first time I have equated America's national debt problems to being the tallest midget in the circus. Venezuela's recent jumping to the top of the news cycle puts it in the spotlight and places it as one of the shortest midgets in the circus. The International Monetary Fund estimates Venezuela's nominal GDP at about $82.8 billion for 2025, implying a debt-to-GDP ratio of between 180%-200%. Places like Cuba and Venezuela wind up being failed states when they no longer have access to the world credit market; and truth be told are unlikely to get access to it any time soon. Don't overlook China and Russia both providing credit to Cuba and Venezuela and with Maduro's recent arrest Trump once again poking a stick in the eye of a perceived enemy. As for the oil Venezuela has never had a good revenue stream from it's oil reserves without American know how getting it to market. The current oil market heavily discounts oil from Venezuela due to it's low quality. Bringing a lot of it to market would only lower general oil prices. Not to mention the seemingly winding down of the Ukraine conflict would likely end sanctions on Russian oil exports and increase the legal supply. Trump may have other motives than access to oil in Venezuela.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We have been energy dominant since 2022!! We are by far the biggest oil and gas producer on the planet and if anything oil is too cheap for American frackers. That said, our refineries are built to refine Venezuelan heavy crude and so our refineries can buy Venezuelan crude at a discount and increase margins for a few years before the bottom falls out of the refining industry. Remember Trump attempted to get the Philly refinery to rebuild after a fire and they rebuffed him because it’s not a growth industry.

[Bunny495]

SBF you really missed my point. I have no illusions about how oil fits into the economy. I also have no illusions about how quickly it will no longer fit into the economy. I am not sure about what I will term short term revenue streams if (not when) America gets access to oil from Venezuela. China is currently the biggest buyer of oil from Venezuela and Morado's arrest is a real kick in the dick for them. I am not bullish on long term oil investments but also am not buying into it quickly being phased out. I am bullish on Trump's ability to make liberal heads explode.

[ThePublius]

I said earlier 'You people don't have principles or philosophy, you only have opposition. Anything the right or Republicans or Trump does you are against. It literally doesn't matter what it is or how its done.'

Here's an example:

"Not a word, and no outrage from the loony left when President Joe Biden had President 'Juan Orlando Hernandez' of Honduras arrested and extradited to the United States for drug trafficking."

Did any of you liberals on here complain about this? I don't recall that you did.

"The Biden-Harris administration made available a $25,000,000 reward for information that would have lead to the arrest of Nicolas Maduro.

Now you're [Kamala Harris] saying capturing him was unlawful? Did you just entirely forget your administration's policy?

Hypocrisy in spades.

[Michael P]

Hernandez wasn't in office in 2022, and he was extradited using normal procedures, so I don't think his case is very analogous.

[ThePublius]

Well, I think they are analogous, in that they snatched a foreign national to bring him for trial in the U.S.

[Michael P]

Just so we know where to start, do you know what extradition is, and how the extradition process normally works?

[ThePublius]

I know what it means, generally, but I don't know the details. Yes, I get it, extradition and 'snatching' are different, but it remains they were removed form their countries and brought to the U.S. to face charges.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I get it, extradition and 'snatching' are different,

So, you don't get it. You pretend you do, but you actually handwave away the massive difference to such an extent that you clearly do not understand it at all.

[ThePublius]

DN, you're not the arbiter of what I understand or don't understand. The reality is that I just don't care. Both were international criminals who were brought to justice in the U.S. Good.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"DN, you're not the arbiter of what I understand or don't understand. The reality is that I just don't care. Both were international criminals who were brought to justice in the U.S. Good."

This is why you only infest the wild west of the Open Comments thread.

You're a joke on a legal blog.

[Michael P]

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/frequently-asked-questions-regarding-extradition is a good -- but brief -- summary of the theoretical process.

In the case of Juan Orlando Hernández, what happened was:
1. The US government requested his extradition, a Honduran court issued a warrant for his arrest, and he agreed to surrender for extradition proceedings. (This was all on 14-15 Feb 2022, and the exact sequence isn't clear to me.)
2. The Supreme Court of Honduras heard the case and approved the order (15 Feb).
3. Hernández appealed, but that was rejected and his extradition was approved (28 Mar).
4. Hernández was extradited to the US for trial (21 Apr).

Those steps might have been unduly informed by politics (I don't take a position on that), but the intent is to provide procedural protections so that extraditions happen according to good law and accepted legal principles. Grabbing a head of state in a raid might be exactly what Maduro deserved, but it's a very different procedure than an extradition. That's why I don't see the cases as analogous.

[gregoryjp]

You can make any two things analogous if you eliminate all relevant details.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump surrendered to the Taliban…Biden wanted out of Afghanistan but he probably wouldn’t have surrendered to the Taliban but the underlying rationale is the same and the outcome is the same.

Biden wanted Maduro captured and brought to justice and Trump is president and because Biden just talked Trump gets to capture him his way. Focus on the outcome and if it is making America stronger or weaker and getting out of Afghanistan made us stronger and so far I support Trump’s actions with respect to Maduro. Caveat is I voted for Rubio and so maybe I have some investment in actions Rubio is clearly leading on.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be quoting randos on Twitter again.

Doing so with no checking is an easy recipe to end up looking like a fool.

[ThePublius]

Do you have a comment on the content, at all? What about my OP is factually false???

[Sarcastr0]

Your attempt at a double standard gotcha is hampered by your not caring enough to understand what the fuck you are talking about.

[DDHarriman]

If you want to understand why all the Leftwing caterwauling over Maduro, look no further than here:

https://international.dsausa.org/venezuela-solidarity/

This influential Democrat organization was sending election observers down to put a stamp of credibility on Maduro's stolen elections (sound familiar??)

And they were propping up this oppressive dictator in the name of:
"Solidarity with the people of Venezuela! Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution!"

Sounds like our own Save Our Sacred Democracy types.

[David Nieporent]

The DSA, of course, is not an "influential Democrat [sic] organization."

[DDHarriman]

Right, an ideological influence organization that includes powerful Democrat politicians isn't an "influential Democrat organization".

It's an influential organization filled with Democratics.

AOC - not influential
Tlaib - not influential
Pelosi - not influential
Mandami - not influential
Nadler - not influential

Why do you think AOC & Mandami stand in solidarity with the People of Venezuela by propping up Maduro?

[jb]

Seems like you don't have a lot of confidence in your point if you have to lie about who is in the DSA to try to convince us of its influence.

[ThePublius]

The only one he got wrong is Pelosi. And he left out Bernie Sanders, who, while an independent, aligns with DSA.

The idea that DSA is not an influential Democrat organization is completely incorrect.

[jb]

Jerry Nadler is pretty liberal, but I've never seen mention of him being a member of DSA. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

And Bernie isn't a Democrat at all, as you acknowledge.

So basically two Congressional back benchers and a Mayor that the Senate minority leader refused to endorse. Sounds like you've found the true power brokers within the party alright.

[DDHarriman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_public_officeholders

Quick before the Narrative Minders clean it up.

[jb]

"Former member". He left last millennium.

Your attempt below to link Pelosi to the DSA is positively comical. Very Trumpian to just double down when caught in an obvious lie, though.

[DDHarriman]

You knew nothing about this, now all of a sudden you're an expert... lmao u fn ppl i swear

[jb]

This is not hard. I hadn't heard of him being a member because it's been a quarter century since he was. Then you posted a link which gave me the opportunity to learn more. You should try learning something sometime; it would make you less to post stupid shit.

[ThePublius]

"U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and its successor, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and was active in the organization as late as 1999, though his current status isn't specified in recent sources, which primarily highlight his Democratic Party affiliation."

[jb]

Right, I saw that after DDHarriman posted the Wikipedia link and I did some more research.

So back before any of AOC, Tlaib or Mamdani had ever run for office and when Nadler himself was a back bencher, he was also a member of the DSA. For context, Donald Trump was a Democrat more recently than Nadler was a member of the DSA. I don't think anyone would say that Trump is a good example of how influential the Democrats are right now, though.

[DDHarriman]

Pelosi has had several interactions with the DSA and is DSA adjacent, both are about government power and personal wealth.... in practice.

[David Nieporent]

It is not an influential organization, and the only powerful people you listed are people who aren't members. (Though at least Nadler once was, so you were only half wrong about him.) The ones who actually are members are people that the GOP wishes were powerful so that it would be easier to have foils to run against.

[ThePublius]

"The DSA, of course, is not an "influential Democrat [sic] organization.""

That's total bunk. You do realize, of course, that Mamdani is now mayor of NYC, perhaps the most important city in the USA?? And what about AOC, Bernie Sanders (though an independent who aligns with DSA), Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Jamaal Bowman, et.al.

Geez. Just keep denying and lying, I guess, is your shtick.

[Sarcastr0]

It's okay not to know the ins and outs of leftist politics in the US. It is a silly place. But then maybe don't make cocksure statements about it. And certainly don't accuse everyone of lying when they point out you don't know what you're talking about.

The DSA is largely set against the Democratic Party, from the left.

Or did you miss how the actual DNC was extremely lukewarm on Mamdani?

Also: "Geez. Just keep denying and lying, I guess, is your shtick."
So much for civility, you fragile hypocrite.

[David Nieporent]

It is not clear to me why you think listing a handful of backbenchers is supposed to support the case that the DSA is influential. Indeed, your list is so small and sad that one third of your list consists of people who lost Democratic primaries and are no longer even in office. And as even you were forced to acknowledge, Bernie Sanders is not even a member.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden increased the bounty on Maduro’s head. Republicans whined about Obama taking out Qaddafi who actually killed Americans and British in a terrorist attack.

[DDHarriman]

Woah, I wonder why he did that instead of doing what Trump did?

His CCP paymasters wouldn't let him?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I support Trump’s actions but I still don’t think risking Delta Force was worth this reward but now that it is accomplished the risk was worth it. I don’t think Biden would have believed risking the lives of Delta Force was worth it but America is just so much stronger by 2024 than in 2020 that maybe Kamala would have risked it because the military exists??

[DDHarriman]

The Left: You can't just kill those Venezuelan narco-traffickers, arrest them and give them due process!
Also The Left: You can't arrest Maduro and give him due process!!

[Randal]

Nobody on the left has said that.

What we've said is, thank you for abandoning "America First" and returning to globalist interventionism... but... this looks like the Gulf War only worse. Maybe we'll be proved wrong and Trump will leave Venezuela alone after this.

More likely Trump's going to get 25thed for Alzheimer's first. Then well have Vance v Venezuela. I guess if we're going for pure entertainment, which is the theory that makes most sense to me at this point, then wonderful things await.

[DDHarriman]

The Dunroe Doctrine is the first America First military intervention since we became ZOG a generation ago.

It's about time our blood and treasure went to serve Heritage Americans.

[Randal]

I can't believe you typed that with a straight finger! Just regurgitating Trump's poo with no shame, I see.

Pop Quiz, in what way does this intervention benefit Heritage Americans?

[jb]

Dude, The Publius already tried this particularly dumb strawman.

I guess we know what the talking points of the day are, though!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Saints lose. Panthers in.

Jags win division. If the Pats & Broncos lose, they get the #1 seed.

Giants managed to win back-to-back games for the first time in years. LV is guaranteed to be the worst team.

Colts' young back-up, in for Grandpa now that they are eliminated, did well. They still lose by two. Team, now led by a female owner (played by Cameron Diaz in the movie), has decisions to make.

(They actually lost by eight, losing the ball in the back/forth in the last desperation play & Texas ran it in for a bonus six.)

[Michael P]

There was a significant fire at a battery energy storage facility in Warwick, NY. This is not a repeat from 2023. Or that other time in 2023 but across town. Or that place in California.

https://hudsonvalley.news12.com/hydrogen-cyanide-detected-in-air-samples-after-warwick-lithium-ion-battery-fire

[Absaroka]

Is the take home message that battery storage is a bad idea?

The article says "hydrogen cyanide was recorded at 0.5 parts per million at a meter placed just outside the facility while the fire was burning — about half of the maximum allowable amount under federal guidelines. Downwind monitors, they say, measured zero."

Cyanide is a compound of carbon and nitrogen, and common problem in ordinary house fires.

So I guess the question is, what's different about this fire that makes it newsworthy?

[wvattorney13]

"@wvattorney: You think the power to declare war is only the power to say "We declare war" and the power to perform an invasion of another country is totally unrelated? Well, I disagree with that. But how about the part of the Constitution which says treaties are part of the supreme law of the land? Can you say with a straight face that no treaties were violated in the performance of this action?"

I assume you agree that declaring war and engaging in warlike activities are two different things. If you don't agree then I would suggest that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, etc. are examples which prove the point.

Once you agree with that, that they are two separate things, why does the power to do one necessarily or even plausibly includes the power to do the other?

Stated another way, a declaration of war against Venezuela would suggest that we are mobilizing the land, sea, and air forces against it, likely in a war of conquest. That's not remotely what we are doing.

[Magister]

Korea and Vietnam are poor examples, since Congress responded to the latter with the War Powers Resolution. Both Iraq I and II were authorized by Congress, as was Afghanistan. Involvement in Lebanon was authorized by Congress in 1983. Grenada was a very brief operation whose legality was also questioned; the House apparently voted to apply the War Powers Resolution to limit further involvement. Panama was only slightly longer and prompted in part by the killing of a US Marine and concerns for the Panama Canal Zone; the War Powers Resolution seems consistent with that response. Venezuela is clearly different from these, and already had started hostilities against Venezuela by sinking Venezuelan boats in September, more than 60 days earlier.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Aaron Rupar on Bluesky (You can find the quotes various places):

Trump in a single gaggle on Air Force One just threatened:

-- a second strike against Venezuela ("If they don't behave, we will do a second strike")
-- Cuba ("Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it's ready to fall. I don't know if they're gonna hold out.")
-- Mexico ("You have to do something with Mexico. Mexico has to get its act together ... every time I talk to [Sheinbaum] I offer to send troops. She's a little afraid.")
-- Colombia ("TRUMP: Colombia is very sick too. Run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the US, and he's not gonna be doing it very long. Q: So there's will be an operation by the US in Colombia? TRUMP: Sounds good to me")
-- Iran ("If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they're gonna get very hard by the US")
-- Greenland (which in turn would be an attack on the EU and Denmark) ["We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not gonna be able to do it ... the EU needs us to have it"]

Denmark officially was not pleased:

https://www.arctictoday.com/danish-pm-urges-trump-to-stop-threats-against-historically-close-ally/

The Finnish President (basically same comment as Sweden) and Sweden P.M. ("Only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland. Sweden fully stands up for our neighboring country.") also were upset.

https://bsky.app/profile/publius24.bsky.social/post/3mbndjectm22l

[Magister]

Just nailing the next Nobel Peace Prize, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If he invades Norway and sends US troops to monitor the selection, I'm sure he'd be a shoe-in.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, one of them.