CD332: Controlling Venezuela

What controls are you putting to audit those flows? Because as you know, the Venezuelan government still has a lot of shady people. How are you controlling the dispersion of those flows so that they don't go back to some of the shady characters that the president is concerned about in Venezuela? What is the audit process? Again, we will be bringing in outside auditors for this, and the Venezuelan government will be producing auditors. Do you have an agreement in place right now for those auditors? Sorry? Do you have an agreement for that audit in place right now? Not at present. Okay, because Secretary Rubio, when he was asked that question before the Senate, he said that the Treasury had handled the agreement that he would be providing to the Senate committee. Are you saying that Secretary Rubio was incorrect or that you're not aware of the agreement the Treasury directed according to Secretary Rubio? I'm saying I'm not aware of the agreement. So Secretary of State Rubio says Treasury is in charge of the account and the audit. And Treasury says, what? Oh, boy. I am so damn tired of being lied to. I don't think I can deny it anymore. You can't stick to your story if you think it flies. But I'm not gonna buy it anymore Hello, friend, and thank you for listening to the 332nd episode of Congressional Dish. I'm your host, Jennifer Briney. And today you're going to hear the Trump administration's plans for Venezuela. Because as you probably heard on January 2nd, Happy New Year, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were captured during a middle-of-the-night attack by our military inside of Venezuela. Approximately 75 people were killed by our military, and President Maduro and his wife were flown to New York City, where they are currently sitting in prison cells. I have no way to judge the validity of the charges that have been brought against them, but captured them, we have. But this episode isn't really about President Maduro, his wife, or their situation. This episode is about our government and what the people currently in charge of it think they're authorized to do in our names and what they are planning to do now that they have removed Venezuela's president, but only its president. Since January 2nd's attack on Venezuela and the removal of President Maduro, his vice president has been acting as president of Venezuela. That's like removing President Trump and letting J.D. Vance act as president with all of Trump's cabinet secretaries still in place. We removed a man, but the party retained control. And so today we're going to hear how the administration views that situation and hear the plans for Venezuela's future from the member of his administration who I strongly suspect is the most responsible for our Venezuela policy. And that's Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And I can't explain or make sense of the entire Trump administration, and I won't try. But I do have some familiarity bias when it comes to Marco Rubio in particular because I've studied him for so many years. Marco Rubio became a United States Senator representing Florida in 2011. That's the year before I started a congressional dish. And so until he joined the Trump administration last year, he was all over my radar. And particularly relevant to Venezuela, as Senator, he served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for his entire Senate career, briefly raising to the rank of chairman by the end of the first Trump administration. Marco Rubio also served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his entire Senate career, where he got to chair the subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, transnational crime, civilian security, democracy, human rights, and global women's issues, which covers the Venezuela region. And Marco Rubio was on both of those committees during the first Trump administration, when he was in full support of the first Trump administration's attempt to remove Venezuelan President Maduro from power in what I have nicknamed the dumbest coup of all time. In that coup attempt, the first Trump administration tried to say that President Maduro just isn't president anymore. This other guy is. The other guy was the head of the National Assembly at the time, which is the Venezuelan version of their Congress, and his name was Juan Guaido. And 80-something other countries actually went along with this whole, hey, Guaido is the president now thing. But unfortunately for them, there are 195 countries in this world and the majority of them remained in reality. And eventually that dumb ass coup just failed and Juan Guaido fled to Miami, Florida. He fled to Marco Rubio State after the actual president of Venezuela issued a warrant for his arrest for treason. And if you wanna know more about that dumb, dumb coup, we produced two episodes about it. One was produced in 2018 as the coup was being clanned. That's episode number 176, Target, Venezuela. And then there was another episode we produced in 29 called A Coup for Capitalism. It was episode number 190, and that was produced as the coup attempt was in motion. And Senator Marco Rubio was all for it. Here he is in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on January 29th, 2019. Is it not in the national interest of the United States of America that the Maduro regime fall and be replaced by a democratic and more responsible government. And so fast forward to the second Trump administration, and that guy is our Secretary of State. And based on over a decade of observation, I think Marco Rubio is one of the most intelligent and capable members of the Trump administration. And I think the Venezuela project is his baby. And so that's why I think that if we want to know, at least as best we can, what the Trump administration has in mind for Venezuela, I think Rubio is the one to watch, especially when he is speaking to the people who know him best in the Senate, the people he served with, his friends and coworkers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And that's what we got to see on January 28th. And the highlights of that hearing are going to make up most of this episode today. But of course, if you want to go further down this rabbit hole, we have every source used to create this episode waiting for you. We have links to the full hearings. We have transcripts and timestamps of all of these sound clips. We have articles and documents. Everything we used are waiting for you in this episode's show notes in your podcast app or on congressionaldish.com, along with links that allow you to support the show financially. And I get that this economy is trash and a lot of us are financially hurting. And voluntarily supporting a free podcast, you know, that support is justifiably one of the first expenses to get cut in times like these. I get it. This is why all of the fact-checked, most important information I have is free and will always be free to the public. But this show really does need your support if you're not financially fried right now. The income for Congressional Dish went down in 2025, and that's not good. And so please support this show if you want this show to be around long term. And if you support us regularly on Patreon, you do get bonus episodes most weeks telling you what happened last week in Congress. And those episodes serve as the building blocks for the monthly summaries that I started producing last fall. But the point is, if you like this show, if you appreciate the value Congressional Dish brings to your personal knowledge and to documenting history, and if you don't want me to abandon it due to decreasing wages, please pay whatever you think is fair using whatever method you like best. Venmo, Zelle, Paper Checks, Cash App, Bitcoin for Christ's sake, we take it all. We appreciate it all and we need it all. So please help us out if you can. So before we get into the Venezuela hearing, I do want you to listen to then-Senator Marco Rubio explain his worldview, because I do think that it helps to put the goals he is going to profess for Venezuela into a bigger picture context. This little speech given by little Marco was in February 2023, when he was a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to get a little broader because I think it's important to understand sort of the strategic vision behind our tactics on everything that we do. So if we go back to the late 80s, early 90s, end of the Cold War, and the gamble at the time was, if we created this international economic order led by the U.S. and the West, built on this global commitment to free trade, that this, you know, notion of, that this trade and commerce would bind nations together via trade, via commerce, and international interest, and economic interest, that it would lead to more wealth and prosperity, that it would lead to democracy and freedom, basically domestic changes in many countries, and that it would ultimately ensure peace. The famous saying now seems silly, that no two countries with McDonald's in them have ever gone to war. That's obviously no longer the case. But the point being is that that was the notion behind it. It was what the then Secretary General or Director General of the WTO called that world without walls, rules-based international order. Others call it globalization. And basically our foreign policy has been built around that. Even though it's an economic theory, it basically is what we have built our foreign policy on. And while that vision doesn't seem to be the worldview of tariff-happy President Donald Trump, I don't think that anything has changed for Marco Rubio or for most congressional Republicans and Democrats, quite frankly, even if damn near all Republicans in Congress right now are willing to abandon all of their principles in order to avoid becoming target of a middle-of-the-night truth social toilet rant by their dear leader. And because I believe Marco Rubio retains that worldview alongside most members of Congress, when Marco Rubio returned to his old committee, to his old friends and colleagues, he was speaking to like-minded individuals on the goal for the structure of the world. And before I start giving you the details of their conversations, I do just want to put a little disclaimer on this. Because I'm sharing this footage with you because I want you to hear our Secretary of State's vision for Venezuela, because I think he's the point man in charge of the policy. I'm not sharing it with you because I agree with anything they've done. I think that there's some pretty glaring hypocrisies and inconsistencies actually, but this episode isn't about me. You can judge the testimony for yourself. My goal is to give you this testimony with the fluff removed so that you don't have to sit through more than three hours of the hearing. But basically, I'm asking you not to shoot the messenger. Both literally, please, but also figuratively. If what you hear today makes you feel anything, like anger, please communicate those feelings to Congress, because ranting towards me is a waste of your efforts because I am as powerless as you are. And speaking of powerless, the current Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman announced some new rules to make sure that the senators wouldn't have to be bothered by any of us powerless peasants during the hearing. In the hundreds of hearings that I've listen to? I've never heard one start like this until Republican Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Risch of Idaho, opened the Venezuela hearing on January 28th like this. Before I start, I will tell everyone, those of you in the audience, we're so glad to have you here. Thanks so much for coming. This is a public hearing. It is also the official business of the United States of America, and as a result of that, the committee has a zero-tolerance policy for interruptions or for attempts by anyone in the room to communicate with somebody up here or the witness. So as a result of that, if you do disrupt, you will be arrested. You'll be banned for a year. However, I'm told that we have some guests today who have completed their ban and are back with us again today. We hope you've had the time to think about your indiscretions and will behave yourself today. If you don't, as a persistent violator, you'll be banned for three years this time. Now, arrests are nothing new in the halls of Congress, but this is the first that I'm hearing of a ban on people being allowed to attend public hearings for up to three years. And I'd be curious if any of our congressional staffers in this DISH community know if this is new or if I just haven't noticed it until now. But anyway, in general, during the hearing, the Republicans totally supported the coup in Venezuela, all of them except for one. But as an example, here's Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska. But I want to at least offer my personal congratulations to you and everybody who helped carry this out because the world is better off without Nicolas Maduro. And here's the chairman again, James Risch of Idaho. Every American should be thanking Donald Trump and Marco Rubio for what they have done. There are a lot of Americans today who wouldn't be alive if not for your commitment and dedication to stemming the flow of drugs into our country. And this is a line we're going to hear from Republicans a lot. And so I want to make the facts clear because Venezuela is not now and has not been a main source of drugs that flow into the United States. Fentanyl, when it's illegally trafficked into the United States, is coming mainly from Mexico, with the ingredients for it coming mostly from China. I know this because the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report from 2025 from the U.S. State Department from Marco Rubio's own department says so. What it does not list is Venezuela as a country that's producing or significantly trafficking fentanyl into the United States. The drug that Venezuela plays any role in is cocaine, but cocaine is not produced in Venezuela. Cocaine is known to move through Venezuela as it's being transported sometimes, mainly from Colombia. Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico are also named in the National Drug Threat Assessment for being cocaine producers and transporters, but Venezuela, once again, is not really involved. But those facts, reported by their own administration, didn't stop the Trump administration from using drugs as a stated reason for capturing Venezuela's president or from bombing at least 36 boats and killing at least 126 people at sea, with no evidence yet given to Congress proving that anyone on those boats were trafficking drugs. Not that transporting drugs subjects anyone to the death penalty anyway. And while it wasn't a main subject of the hearing, the boat bombings did come up, And this could explain why the boat bombings weren't a main topic of the hearing. Here's Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Finally, a public hearing. But even that hearing is constrained. I'd like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about the strikes on boats in international waters, but I can't because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting. I can't tell you why the domestic rationale is hollow and the international rationale is hollow. I can't tell you why the rationale for attacking Venezuela is hollow, because again, the rationale has been shared with us in a closed setting. I can't share with you the grim details of the murder of shipwrecked survivors in open waters that we all know because we've seen the videos, And we've questioned the U.S. military officials involved about legality because the administration will not release that publicly. They released the boat strike videos publicly, but they hid the second strike that killed struggling shipwreck survivors, even from Congress, for nearly three months. But I can't really talk to you about it. I can't talk to you about the weakness of the targeting criteria being used to attack boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. I would encourage any colleague, if you have not, go to the classified setting and ask for a briefing on each strike and ask this question, what was the evidence that there were narcotics on that craft? You will be very surprised if you ask that question about every strike. And so even in this first public hearing, five months in, there's a lot we can't talk about. And so, in summary, the Trump administration is still hiding a lot of things about those boat bombings. And I also just want to reiterate that Venezuela is not a main player in the international drug game. So please keep that in mind as Republicans bring up drugs and narco-trafficking and boat bombings in this hearing. There are extremely questionable claims that will be made throughout this hearing, and while I don't have the facts to disprove them, you should know that they are seriously in doubt. Which brings me to Marco Rubio. So here is a good chunk of Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio's opening statement to Congress. He's serving both roles right now in the Trump administration. And again, I don't know how much of this is true, but this is what he is telling our Congress about the administration's justifications for their actions and their goals. In this testimony, he's going to mention the FARC and ELN. Those are political groups that are not down with capitalism inside Colombia. and both of these groups have been long considered enemies by our government and have financed themselves with drugs. All right, buckle up. Here's Marco Rubio. What is our goal going in? We had in our hemisphere a regime operated by an indicted narco-trafficker that became a base of operation for virtually every competitor, adversary, and enemy in the world. It was, for Iran, their primary spot of operation in the Western was Venezuela. For Russia, their primary base of operation in the Western Hemisphere along Cuba and Nicaragua was Venezuela. In the case of China, China was receiving oil at a huge a barrel discount and they weren even paying money for it It was being used to pay down debt that they were owed This is the oil of the people of Venezuela and it was being given to the Chinese as barter at a discount per barrel in some cases And so you had basically three of our primary opponents in the world operating from our hemisphere from that spot. It was also a place where you had a narco-trafficking regime that openly cooperated with the FARC and the ELN and other drug trafficking organizations using their national territory. It was an enormous strategic risk for the United States, not halfway around the world, not in another continent, but in the hemisphere in which we all live. And it was having dramatic impacts on us, but also on Colombia and on the Caribbean basin and all sorts of other places. It was an untenable situation, and it had to be addressed. And it was addressed. And now the question becomes what happens moving forward. As I've described to you in previous settings and in individual conversations, we had three objectives here. The final, I'll work it backwards because the end state here is we want to reach a phase of transition where we are left with a friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela and democratic in which all elements of society are represented in free and fair elections. By the way, you can have elections. You can have elections all day. But if the opposition has no access to the media, if opposition candidates are routinely dismissed and unable to be on the ballot because the government, those aren't free and fair elections. That's the end state that we want. Free, fair, prosperous, and friendly Venezuela. We're not going to get there in three weeks. It's going to take some time. And so objective number one was stability. In the aftermath of the removal of Maduro, the concern was what happens in Venezuela? Is there civil war? Do the different factions start going at each other? Are a million people crossing the border into Colombia? All of that has been avoided. And one of the primary ways that it has been avoided is the ability to establish direct, honest, respectful, but very direct and honest conversations with the people who today control the elements of that nation, meaning the law enforcement, the government apparatus, etc. And one of the tools that's available to us is the fact that we have sanctions on oil. There is oil that is sanctioned that cannot move from Venezuela because of our quarantine. And so what we did is we entered into an arrangement with them. And the arrangement is this. On the oil that is sanctioned in quarantine, we will allow you to move it to market. We will allow you to move it to market at market prices, not at the discount China was getting. In return, the funds from that will be deposited into an account that we will have oversight over. and you will spend that money for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Why was that important? Venezuela was running out of storage capacity. They were producing oil, they were drilling oil, they had nowhere to put it. They had nowhere to move it and they were facing a fiscal crunch. They needed money in the immediacy to fund the police officer, the sanitation workers, the daily operations of government. And so we've been able to create a short-term mechanism. This is not going to be the permanent mechanism, but this is a short-term mechanism in which the needs of the Venezuelan people can be met through a process that we've created where they will submit every month a budget of this is what we need funded. We will provide for them at the front end what that money cannot be used for, and they've been very cooperative in this regard. In fact, they have pledged to use a substantial amount of those funds to purchase medicine and equipment directly from the United States. In fact, one of the things they need is dilutin, depending how you want to pronounce it, and that basically is the light crude that you need to mix with their heavy crude in order for the oil to be able to be mixed and moved. They used to get 100% of that from Russia. They are now getting 100% of that from the United States. So we're using that short-term mechanism both to stabilize the country, but also to make sure that the oil proceeds that are currently being generated through the licenses will now begin to issue on the sanctioned oil goes to the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not to fund the system that existed in the past. The second is a period of recovery. And that is the phase in which you want to see a normalized oil industry. Again, this is, look, we've got plenty of oil. There's plenty of oil all over the world. Canada produces heavy crude. So it's not like Venezuela's oil is unique in that regard, despite the fact they have the largest known reserves in the world. It's not irreplaceable. But we understand that that is the lifeline. Their natural resources are going to allow Venezuela to be stable and prosperous moving forward. And so we have created the, what we hope to do is transition to a mechanism that allows that to be sold in a normal way, a normal oil industry, not one dominated by cronies, not one dominated by graft and corruption. To that end, the authorities there deserve some credit. They have passed a new hydrocarbon law that basically eradicates many of the Chavez era restrictions on private investment in the oil industry. It probably doesn't go far enough to attract sufficient investment, but it's a big step from where they were three weeks ago. So that's a major change. Okay, so there's a lot there. But really, there were three main goals outlined by Secretary of State Rubio that we're going to take a closer look at throughout this hearing. One is that they wanted a friendly government in Venezuela. Two, they wanted to normalize, aka privatize, Venezuela's oil industry. And three, they wanted financial control of Venezuela's oil profits. And so first, let's take a look at their attempts to create a friendly government in Venezuela. But in order to get a friendly government, they had to remove the unfriendly one. And so here's how they did it and how they're justifying it. Here's Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And one contingency that had to be planned for is the fact that sitting in Venezuela with a $50 million reward on his head was an indicted narco trafficker. In fact, I believe it's the largest reward we've ever issued for anybody. I remind everybody the Biden administration had a $25 million reward on an indicted narco trafficker, the same person. And so multiple administrations from both parties have wanted this man arrested. And one of the options the president had before him was the opportunity, if things didn't work out, to go in and remove this individual because he was wanted in a law enforcement operation. Now obviously a law enforcement operation against the de facto head of a regime is not as simple as going after some fugitive hiding in a closet somewhere. It required planning and it required eliminating anything that was a threat to the forces that were going in to extract them. I want to be clear, and I'll share with you what I've shared publicly. We made multiple attempts to get Maduro to leave voluntarily and to avoid all of this because we understood that he was an impediment to progress. You couldn't make a deal with this guy. This guy has made multiple deals. He's broken every one of them. As a point of example, he made a deal with the Biden administration, and here was the deal that he made. It was a bad deal. We knew he wouldn't keep it. He made the following deal. Pardon my nephews, his nephews, who are convicted narco traffickers, convicted already and serving time in jail, pardoned them, pardoned and released Alex Saab, who was his money man, his bag man, primarily in charge of the portfolio with Iran. Release these people. He, in turn, agreed to release some political prisoners, which he did. Many of them were subsequently exiled or rearrested, and that he would hold free and fair elections, which he did not. In fact, he basically disqualified Maria Karina Machado and any other candidate. And Edmundo Gonzalez ends up being the nominee for the opposition party simply because they forgot to ban him and they forgot to put him on the ban list. And then despite that, he loses an election that everyone around the world recognizes in a legitimate election. So he's made previous deals. In fact, he's broken so many deals, not even the Vatican has been willing to interact with Maduro in the past because he's broken so many of these deals. He's just simply not a guy you can make a deal with. He had no intent of keeping it. What he wanted to do was tap us along and buy three years of time until he could deal with a new administration that he thought may be more favorable, etc. He was an impediment to progress. None of the things we're talking about now, not the release of political prisoners, not the transition of the oil industry to a legitimate oil industry, not the erosion of Iranian, Russian, or Chinese influence. None of these things would have been possible as long as Maduro was there. Did you notice something missing from that explanation of how and why President Maduro was removed from Venezuela? Because Senator Chris Coons of Delaware sure did. And by the way, he's going to mention Delcy Rodriguez. Delcy Rodriguez is the vice president now serving as president since Maduro was removed. Of course, the commander in chief has under Article 2, the power to defend the American people against an imminent threat or an incoming attack. How else could we be kept safe? But our Article I power requires consultation. I'll agree with all of my colleagues. Nicolas Maduro is a bad guy. He was indicted. There was a bounty on his head over several administrations. His removal, flawlessly executed by American troops, thankfully none of them hurt, did cost the lives of 75 to 100 Venezuelans and Cubans was a dangerous and high-risk maneuver. I am glad that it ended as well as it possibly could, but the point here that I want to make first is that it was rehearsed for months. The administration had a number of contingencies it was trying to navigate through, but over the course of months when the administration was taking strike after strike after strike against drug trafficking boats, in several instances where senior leaders of the administration briefed this committee and others, We were told that military action to remove Maduro was not on the table, that the campaign to try and deter drug trafficking was not going to include the exact military action that followed. Yet it was being rehearsed. If there was time to practice, there was time to consult. And consulting with Congress is not just some high-minded principle, not some abstract thing, not a nice-to-have. It's a got-to-have. And look, the chairman opened by saying that this was limited in scope and duration, that it was executed flawlessly, and we should all be happy about the result. That much I agree with. But our president continues to threaten Delce Rodriguez and the remnant of the Maduro regime with military force if they don't comply. We should know what are the policies, what is the path, what is the plan forward. You and I both know the long and painful history of wars that began and seemed to be resolved and then opened up into excruciating, expensive, years-long conflicts. In Iraq in particular, in Libya and elsewhere, things do not always go as planned. And so consultation with Congress that is truthful and forthcoming and transparent is critical. In your service in this body, you knew that. You experienced it. I was in the room as you held to account members of previous administrations for not coming forward as they should have. And here's Secretary Rubio's response. The truth of the matter is that this mission could not have been briefed to Congress because it wasn't even in the realm of possible until very late in December when all of our efforts to negotiate with Maduro had failed and the president was finally presented these options and made these decisions. It was also a trigger-based operation. It may never have happened. It required a number of factors to all align at the right place at the right time in a very limited window. And it wasn't even clear if it was ever going to be possible. There's also the aspect which I do not control, and that is deference to the Department of War on operational security. Despite the fact that we had kept this quite constrained, the truth of the matter is that this was leaked. We now know it was leaked by a contractor at the Department of War. that had it been published would have endangered the lives of people and or would have probably canceled the ability to carry out the mission. So this is a real tension and one that I'm doing the best I can to try to manage within the constraints of two things, operational security and also decisions being made. And one Republican senator and only one Republican senator wasn't accepting that answer. Here's Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky speaking to Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State. Our founders debated extensively over which branch of government should have the power to declare or initiate war. Virtually unanimously, they decided what was entered into the Constitution was that the declaration or initiation of war would be the power of Congress. Now, we have many advocates, many of whom are here today, who have been advocates for an expansive notion of presidential power. They often argue that wars are not really wars, that they're kinetic actions or drug busts. I think, though, if you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. So I would ask you, if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war? Well, I think your question is about the— and I will acknowledge you've been very consistent on all these points the entire career. so um let me let me no matter who the who's in charge so i will point to two things the first is it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state indicted in the united states wanted with a 50 million dollar question would be if it only took four hours to take our president it's very short nobody dies on the other side nobody dies on our side it's perfect. Would it be an act of war? We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war. But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties, they're in and out, boom, it's a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument. One-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable are bad arguments. So my next question would be, let's say it's not a war. We're just going to define it away and say it's not a war. That's one of the arguments. So it's a drug bust. What if a foreign country indicts our president for violating a foreign law? should we extradite our president or should we be okay if they come in and get him by force? Look I think ultimately we're always going to act in our national interest and so if somebody comes after our national interest like the case you've described which obviously does not exist at this time but the case you've described the U.S. always has the right to act in its national interest and to protect itself. I don't know about this equivalency where does this justify them doing it. We're always going to do what's best for the United States and America. We're always going to protect our system. But the point isn't, and you're exactly right, we will act in our national interest and we should. So I'm not disagreeing with you at all. What I'm saying is that our arguments are empty then. The drug bust isn't really an argument. It's a ruse. The war argument, not a war, is a war, is a ruse. It's not a real argument. And we do what we do because we have the force. We didn't remove an elected official. We removed someone who was not elected, and it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United States. Our laws, indicted under our laws. Look, Bolsonaro says that Da Silva is not really the president of Brazil. Our president said Biden wasn't really the president. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 Trump wasn't the president. So you have these arguments, and I agree with you. It probably was and most likely was. Most assuredly was a bad election. He wasn't really elected. But at the same time, if that's our predicate and you don't have to come to us because it's a drug bust, we're just removing somebody, you can see where it leads to and it leads to chaos. And that's why we have rules like the Constitution. So we don't get so far out there that presidents can do whatever they want. It is this check and balance. And I would argue for 70 years we've been going the wrong way. It isn't just this president, but it's a debate that I think is worth having. And so without Congress and without any pushback from Congress, other than ignored words like those, the Trump administration removed the president of Venezuela and continued us down this path that Rand Paul and I at least consider wrong. A path that allows lawlessness by the president and legislative impotence by the Congress. The president wanted Maduro out and he got Maduro out. But why? Well, we know one of the reasons. Oil! Venezuela has the largest known reserves of oil in the world. And as Secretary of State Rubio mentioned in his opening statement, the new Venezuelan government wasted no time changing Venezuela's oil laws. Less than a month after the coup, Venezuela had enacted a hydrocarbons law, which opens new pathways for the private sector, aka for multinational corporations that serve to funnel profits to shareholders. Well, they opened up new pathways for them to extract oil and profits from Venezuela. Specifically, the new law in Venezuela created a dispute resolution system. And I don't know the details of this particular system, which is designed to help corporations get what they consider their fair share of business out of a country. But if this dispute settlement system is modeled anything like the World Trade Organization system, it's a fair educated guess to believe that it will be adjudicated by corporate lawyers, sympathetic to multinational companies because that's how the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system functions. The new Venezuelan law also grants private foreign companies the ability to assume more operational control over oil production activities in Venezuela and allows minority shareholders to have more rights. And then finally, the new law also allows royalties, the percentage of proceeds that must go to the Venezuelan government to be lower than 30%, which was the fixed rate before their president was kidnapped and jailed in the United States That means less money will be available for citizen services and more money will be available for international shareholders which pretty much sums up what we stand for in the world. And so now that you know what Venezuela's new government is willing to do in regards to oil, here's an exchange between Republican Senator Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And in this exchange, you're going to hear them mention OFAC, which is an office inside of the Treasury Department called the Office of Foreign Assets Control. You touched on my second question, which is this long history of, very sordid history for outside investors coming into Venezuela. And the president and you had a meeting with our energy leaders in the Oval Office to talk about the opportunity to invest. And there was, you know, worries about the safety of investing. What steps beyond what you just described in terms of the hydrocarbon law, security guarantees for workers, any sorts of certainty that investors are gaining which is going to allow them to have the confidence to move on the opportunities in Venezuela? Yeah, I mean, the first step is some of these investors or potential investors need to get a license from OFAC to be able to even explore this. Then they need to be able to go down there and meet with people and see what's happening and make that determination. Here's what I would say. Venezuela has a lot of oil. They do. But there's a lot of oil in other places too. Companies are only going to invest somewhere if they know we're going to invest, we're going to make our money back with a profit, and our land isn't going to be taken from us. And if you try to, there's a court we can go to and contracts we can enforce. That's the level of certainty that we're talking about in terms of security. And that's part of this transition process. That's part of this recovery process, is to normalize their industry. Because if not, they'll just invest the money in Guyana, or they'll just invest the money in some other part of the world that has oil. They're not going to risk it. So it's to their benefit to have set up a normal, transparent process that encourages foreign investment, not just in oil, by the way, and other natural resources, but in other sectors of their economy. I mean, it's unlimited, whether it's retail, whether it's banking. I mean, a country that's prosperous and generating economic activity holds the promise of all sorts of economic activity. Let me try to squeeze in one more question. And the very next day after this testimony, OFAC licenses were issued. On January 29th, the Office of Foreign Assets Controlled issued General License 46, which authorized some previously prohibited transactions involving Venezuelan oil trades and export-related activities and services by, quote, established U.S. entities, unquote. And less than a week after that, OFAC issued General License 47, authorizing the export of U.S. origin dilutants to Venezuela. And those dilutants were brought up quite a few times in the hearing, like in this exchange between Republican Senator Steve Daines of Montana and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio, as you've noted, there are numerous reasons and good reasons why the U.S. is the arbiter of Venezuelan petroleum sales. With the new export sales framework, the Venezuelan government is now looking to other options to reimburse some of our adversaries, Iran, Russia, as well as Iran's proxies, to include petroleum byproducts which contain valuable minerals and so forth, Flexi-Coke. Has the administration considered expanding the export controls to additional petroleum byproducts? Well, I'm sure we would, except that I can tell you a couple things that are happening. They have, in essence, represented to us, and we have seen in action in the work that they're doing directly with Secretary Wright, who's handling this portfolio on a daily basis. He has a deep historic and career knowledge of this field, is that on all of these things regarding natural resources, their preference and their partner of choice moving forward will be the United States and Western companies, that that's what they intend to do. As a point of example, and I said this earlier in the hearing, you may not have been here, today they used to get 100% of their dealings. They have very heavy crude, and so it has to be mixed with light crude in order to make it refinable and movable. And they were getting 100% of it from Russia, primarily because of sanctions. They prefer to have ours. Why? Number one, it's closer. Number two, it's higher quality. Today, 100% of that diluent is coming from the United States. They were involved in a very complex gold market in which they were mining for gold and silver, and it was being exported almost entirely through Turkey. And we believe the Iranians were using that as a laundering operation for themselves ultimately as well, potentially. And certainly we know that they had an interest in the oil industry as well. We are on the verge of a process in which that will be sold through U.S. markets in a legitimate way that won't go to finance and support. So U.S. companies, aka companies that make money for people rich enough to gamble their leftover savings in the stock market, well, those companies are already benefiting from the coup. And there are some companies benefiting more than others. Here's Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Reports are that you've given no-bid licenses to two companies to sell Venezuela's oil. One of them is a massive donor to the president. To many Americans, that, weeks. And so my question is, can you commit that partners for future sales are going to be chosen through a fair, open selection process? Now, the two companies that he's referring to that got the no-bid contracts were Trifigura and Vitol. Trifigura was given a contract that allowed it to sell Venezuelan oil to a Spanish oil refiner. And then Vitol got a contract to prepare and export Venezuelan oil to international buyers, including negotiations to sell cargoes to U.S. refiners such as Valero and Phillips 66. And the Trump donor who wins in this arrangement is John Addison. John Addison is an executive and senior trader at Vital, and he donated approximately $6 million to President Trump's campaign. And so here's Secretary of State Marco Rubio's response to Senator Murphy's concerns. On the first one, the two traders. So here's the problem we faced. the problem we face in the short term is they had no place to put oil. They were running out of storage capacity for their oil. We had to move that oil to market very quickly. The only way to move it to market very quickly is to plug into these two primary trade companies that could sell it in the open market. That is not the permanent outcome here. That is a short-term fix to a short-term problem, which is they were literally storing oil. They brought in tankers and had tankers sitting offshore just to hold their oil. At some point, their capacity to produce was going to be shut down, and their ability to generate revenue. So we had to move that oil very quickly. The long-term plan is not those two trading companies. The long-term plan is for them to have a normal energy program that sells directly into the market, directly, to refineries and to companies that are exploiting and exploring it. For example, Chevron has operations there that never stopped. They seek to expand those operations. They don't need those trading companies. So those trading companies were a short-term fix for a very acute problem because we wanted to prevent societal collapse because they had no money for revenue. And I just want to point out here that the common wisdom spouted by talking heads devoted to capitalism in regards to Venezuela is that most of Venezuela's problems in the past few decades boiled down to their failed economic system, which is always nicknamed socialism. But this testimony shows that much of the economic pain that has been experienced by Venezuela has been due to the sanctions on oil that our government has inflicted upon them. We declared economic war on Venezuela a long time ago, using our position as the center of the global financial system. And even when we got control of Venezuela's finances, the sanctions were making societal collapse a real possibility. The sanctions matter that much. And I believe that any discussion of the economy in Venezuela that does not mention them is not a conversation worth your time. Because when Venezuela is used as a cautionary example in the endless and exhausting capitalism versus socialism debate, it was never a fair comparison because of the effective sabotage by the capitalists. It wasn't like Venezuela got to try out their ideas on an even playing field. The playing field was rigged by us. When a country depends on proceeds from oil sales to fund their government and we prevent those oil sales, of course their economy will falter. And I'm sure that there were many other factors in the economic troubles in Venezuela. I'm not saying that we were responsible for everything that happened there in the past almost 30 years since Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro's political party took power. But we played a huge role, and Marco Rubio's testimony is evidence of that basic truth. And that brings me to the role of the Trump administration and what they plan to play in Venezuela going forward. And so here's Secretary of State Rubio again. And in this exchange with Democratic Senator Gene Shaheen of New Hampshire, he's going to mention the XM Bank. The XM Bank is a U.S. government bank that lends money when the private banks don't want to. So they're generally doing loans for deals that the private banks are like, that doesn't look profitable for us. And so that's when our government steps in. So on the sanctioned oil, the oil that requires U.S. permission to move. That oil, the proceeds of that oil, which, by the way, is being sold at market price, not at the discount Venezuela was being forced to sell, is being deposited into an account that ultimately will become a U.S. Treasury-blocked account here in the United States. They will submit. We will, at the front end, say this is what this money can be spent on, on these things. We will submit to them. They will submit to us a budget request. We want to use this money for these things. And part of the proceeds will go to fund an audit process to make sure that that's how the money is being spent. And that's how we intend to handle those funds in the short term. There's an actual audit process that's been set up? It will be set up. And we have a couple options. One option is the XM Bank. They have expertise as bankers in being able to do some of that option. There may be some others in place. We haven't finalized what that audit process would be. We've only made one payment, and that payment we did and retrospectively will be audited. But it was important we made that payment because they had to meet payroll. They had to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers on staff. It was a $300 million payment. Right. So it's been reported that the oil sold for $500 million, that $300 million went to Venezuelan government. What happened to the other $200 million? It's still sitting in the account, is my understanding at this time. The account in Qatar? Well, the account, yes. But that will ultimately be trans... That's a short-term account. Ultimately, it will be a U.S. Treasury-blocked account in the United States. And will it also be audited? Correct. Well, the audit will be on the expenditures. At the front end, we'll tell them this is what the money can be spent on. Again, I'm not talking about all the other revenues the Venezuelan government may have. We're talking about the revenues from the sanctioned oil. At the front end, we will say this is what the allowable expenses are. And then they will agree to fund as part of the overall cost. They will pay for and fund an audit system acceptable to us to ensure that that's how the money was spent. And can you report to this committee once that audit system is set up? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. But Senator Brian Schatz, who is a Democrat of Hawaii, he had more questions. I want to ask about the oil. Under U.S. law, funds received by the government must be deposited with the Treasury. Earlier, you testified that the funds are being held short term in Qatar and then will move to a Treasury blocked account. What is the statutory authority for the administration relying on Qatar to hold the funds? It's not our funds. The funds are in an account that's owned and signed. it's an account that belongs to Venezuela, but it has U.S. sanctions as a blocking mechanism on it. And one of the primary reasons why it was in a third country initially until we could create the mechanism to move it to a U.S. presence is twofold. One, we have an issue we're working through on recognition. What is exactly, you have to recognize a government, but we don't recognize this government. We recognize the 2015 National Assembly. So we have to find some creative way legally to meet that standard. The other is frankly creditors. If any of that money touched a U.S. bank, even if it was an account in the name of the Venezuelans, it would immediately be seized upon by a number of creditors who eventually will have to take care of. But in the short term, that would impede the ability of the Venezuelan authorities to receive the funds they need to operate. So do you have the, I mean, this is what I'm trying to get at, right? Either it's American money, in which case it's subject to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, and there are all kinds of things that attend to that. You're saying it's Venezuela's money, but it does sound like, according to the EO, according to the president's statements, you are in charge of that money. What authority are you relying on to be in charge, almost in a sort of receivership kind of arrangement of how funds are both received and expended for a foreign country? Wouldn't you have to come to Congress to establish that kind of relationship? Well, no, because the money never enters our hands. We only control the disbursement of the money. We don't control the actual money in the sense of it comes into our bank account. Do you think that you have somewhere in the statute or the constitution the authority to control disbursements of a foreign country? Well, they've agreed to this, and that's the key. They've agreed to this arrangement in which the sanctions that are placed on this oil is what blocks its distribution. We've agreed to release sanctions and allow the disbursement of the funding as long as they're spending it in a certain way. I understand it's novel, but it's the best we could come up with in the short term. Is there a written agreement that memorializes this? Yes, there is and there will have to be one, most certainly, once we transition that to U.S. accounts. Secretary, my understanding is the committee doesn't have this agreement. Well, I can... I don't know if we do or we don't. Yeah, and you probably wouldn't because it's a Treasury matter. Treasury's handled it, but I can most certainly talk to Treasury about providing you the information. Over and over again, Marco Rubio told senators to talk to Treasury. Treasury will have the answers. Here he is doing it again in an exchange with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Look, the Treasury's handling the structuring of that account. So I would refer you to them and I can get you an answer for them as to what the legal framework of that Treasury block account is going to look like. Well, exactly one week later, Congress got the opportunity to ask Treasury themselves. On February 4th, the head of the Treasury Department, Scott Besant, testified to the House Financial Services Committee and one Democratic representative from Illinois. So hat tip to Sean Caston. he followed up on the answers and the dodges provided by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And so here's what the Treasury Department had to say. Starting this off as Representative Sean Kasten, and in this exchange, you're going to hear them reference IEPA, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which has been U.S. law since 1977. Since the U.S. captured President Maduro, the Trump administration has been selling Venezuelan oil. Secretary Wright has said that's going to continue indefinitely. The president's January 9th executive order said that those funds are the sovereign property of Venezuela, but has directed you, the Treasury Secretary, to hold those assets in custody to facilitate disbursements transfers as directed by the Secretary of State. As I've gone through the 91 specific trust that you have the statutory authority to oversee, none of those have any relationship to Venezuelan oil. So can Can you help us understand under what statutory authority, or what statutory authority is Treasury relying on to exercise the discretionary control over natural resources and sovereign assets of another country? Treasury has no control over the... I'm just asking about what statutory authority you rely on. Again, we are operating under an agreement between state and energy that we are not involved. No, but the executive order said that the Treasury Secretary is holding those assets in custody. That's a specific language there. And is facilitating disbursements. Under what authority are you acting? I will get back to you with the exact authority, but it is under agreement with state. Let me just clarify, because my concern is that the executive order cites IEPA. IEPA specifically says that you have to be engaged in hostilities with a country for IEPA to trigger that claim. Secretary Rubio said that we are not at war with Venezuela. I would agree. I'm glad we're not at war. So unless you disagree with Secretary Rubio, I'm unclear under what legal authority the United States has to control or disperse those assets. Well, I would believe that the IEPA authority would act for a period of time for a trial. Not unless we're not in... For a transition. Well, look, that's not true, but please provide in writing what you're doing there. And I want to get to why I think that's material. Last week, Secretary Rubio also said that the $200 million in proceeds was sitting in a Qatari bank that was owned by Venezuela. He went on to say the Treasury has a written agreement with Venezuela's interim government to review the monthly budget request for payments from that account. I come back to where the authority comes. What statutory authority are you using to exercise custody indirectly through a third country and direct the release of funds from those offshore accounts? The IEPA. That's not an IEPA. You're managing it. Okay, so if you're managing a third country, not an IEPA, and please do provide us with the legal guidance because this matters, what controls are you putting to audit those flows? Because as you know, the Venezuelan government still has a lot of shady people. How are you controlling the dispersion of those flows so that they don't go back to some of the shady characters that the president is concerned about in Venezuela? What is the audit process? Again, we will be bringing in outside auditors for this, and the Venezuelan government will be producing auditors. Do you have an agreement in place right now for those auditors? Sorry? Do you have an agreement for that audit in place right now? Not at present. Okay, because Secretary Rubio, when he was asked that question before the Senate, he said that the Treasury had handled the agreement that he would be providing to the Senate committee. Are you saying that Secretary Rubio was incorrect or that you're not aware of the agreement the Treasury directed according to Secretary Rubio I saying I not aware of the agreement So Secretary of State Rubio says Treasury is in charge of the account and the audit And Treasury says, what? Oh boy. Now, if you've observed the Trump administration at all in these last 13 months, you're probably not surprised that their plan for Venezuela is appearing half-baked, with one hand having no idea what the other hand is doing. but it's still stunning to hear it admitted to like that. The incompetence of these people is a thing to behold. And as for the resistance to all of this, the Democrats, well, you've heard their line of questions. The overall pattern for them, at least on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, appeared to me that they were not exactly against the coup, but instead they seemed more against the way the regime change was done. So for an example here, Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire, she's the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the U.S. naval blockade around Venezuela and the raid have already cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Outside estimates are as high as a billion dollars. And yet the Maduro regime is essentially still in power. All the same people are running the country. Maduro's vice president, now the interim president, has taken no steps to diminish Iran, China, or Russia's considerable influence in Venezuela, one of the reasons that has been given for the mission. Her cooperation appears tactical and temporary and not a real shift in Venezuela's alignment. In the process, we've traded one dictator for another. So the Democrats were focused on the money being spent and the effectiveness of the coup, but not the possible, probable illegality of the coup itself. But they did express concerns for the future. So here's Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. And third, in your testimony, you reserved the right to use force again in the future if the Venezuelan government isn't complying with your requests. So if, for instance, they refuse to give you access to the oil in the future, if they said, we're just going to keep it for ourselves, would this cause you to consider military action? And do you concede that if you're using military action simply to try to compel cooperation from the government, you absolutely need congressional authorization for that? And here's Rubio's response. On the third point of use of force, look, the president never rules out his options as commander in chief to protect the national interest of the United States. I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to have to take any military action in Venezuela at any time. The only military presence you'll see in Venezuela is our Marine guards at an embassy. OK, that is our goal. That is our expectation. And that is what everything that outlines towards. That said, if an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region, the president retains the option to eliminate that threat. I'm asking a more specific question because in your testimony, you suggest that you would use force to compel cooperation, for instance, with oil sales. Do you agree that you have to come to Congress to get authorization if you were simply using force to try to compel cooperation? Well, there's two things. There's the constant, look, there's a, there's, under the War Powers Act, no, under the War Powers Act, if we're going to be involved in something that's going to put us in there involved in a sustained way, we have to notify you within 48 hours after the fact, and then if it's going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to Congress with it. We don't anticipate either of these things having to happen. Everything is moving in a very different trajectory right now. On the other hand, if we tell them we don't want to see drones from Iran, as an example, pointed at the United States or threatening our forces or our presence in the region or our allies' presence in the region, and they refuse to comply with that, the president does reserve the option in self-defense to eliminate that threat. We don't see that. We don't anticipate it. But it could happen. But we hope not. We don't want it to happen. On the contrary, if we had to take military action, it would set us back on all these other things that we're talking about. I can tell you military action is not good for, you know, recovery and transition. That's not what we hope to see. It's certainly not our goal here. A lot of that will depend on them. But I think it would require the emergence of an imminent threat of the kind that we do not anticipate at this time. But that's not, they get a vote on that too. But Senator Tammy Duckworth, she's a Democrat representing Illinois, she wasn't satisfied with those assurances. And by the way, Tammy Duckworth has no legs because they were blown off in 2004 when she was serving our country in the military in Iraq. When it comes to matters of war, Tammy Duckworth is not one to be f***ed with. And here is her exchange with her former Senate Relations Committee colleague, Marco Rubio. Mr. Secretary, last March, the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a notorious wartime law last used for Japanese internment. He said that he was responding to the Maduro regime's supposed invasion or other acts of war against the United States. But in recent weeks, you, the Department of Justice, and our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said that we are not at war with Venezuela. Secretary Rubio, if that is true and we are not at war with Venezuela, will you advise the president to rescind his invocation of the Wartime Alien Enemies Act? Well, that was a mechanism to remove people from our country that prevent grave danger. So, for example, we know for a fact that Tren de Agua is a very dangerous gang. In fact, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I may have been the first member of Congress. This is a wartime act, Mr. Secretary. Are we currently at war with Venezuela? No, we're not in a state of war in Venezuela. Okay, the Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power. Our Supreme Court. And before now, the Alien Enemies Act was only invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, World War II, when it was used to intern thousands of innocent civilians. Are you really arguing that the president should be able to wield an internment law? No, no, no, but we're talking about two separate things here. So you're talking about the state of Venezuela or are describing the regime. And we're talking about, no, no, but what the president designated. The president invoked the alien enemy. I know, Senator, but let me be clear with you. No, but what the president was talking about are these gangs and these narco-trafficking groups that are waging war on the United States. There's no doubt. These groups have waged war on the United States. They have, for example, Train de Dago is not just a criminal gang presence in our street. It is a criminal gang responsible, directly responsible for narco trafficking. The Trump administration has acknowledged that the vast majority of the men it rounded up and deported to torture under this law had no criminal records whatsoever. We didn't torture anyone. Independent, over 75%. Who did we torture? We haven't tortured anybody. We've arrested people that are members of gangs and we've deported them. Independent investigations have found that many of the men were here legally. If the administration is willing to lie about who it's targeting under this law, what protections do totally innocent people have against abuse? Again, I want to ask you, will you advise the president to rescind his invocation of the wartime alien enemy attack? No, of course not. I mean, these are people that are threats to the national security of the United States. But I've described this in hearings in the past, including before you guys. So you're saying that we're at war? We are absolutely. When it comes to narco-trafficking groups and criminal gangs that are targeting the United States for criminal activity. We're in a state of war. There's no doubt about the fact that we're. confronting them in a war like... Do the national laws of war apply, and do the Geneva Convention apply? They're waging war against us, and they're enemy combatants as a result of it. And the fact of the matter is that we are confronting these irregular groups, and that's one of the great challenges of the new century, in this hemisphere in particular, is that these non-state actors, who possess state-like capabilities in terms of their weaponry, pose a grave danger to the United States. I don't think any American would dispute that we have cartels that pose a threat to the national security of the United States. Will the President comply with all of the other laws when it comes to warfare? I mean, you're saying that he can invoke this wartime power. No, I'm saying, you're asking me, I'm here to discuss foreign policy and what's in the realm of the Department of State. Well, you don't think you're invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which is a wartime, which is something that can be invoked during wartime. It's only been invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It's only been invoked three times, and this president is invoking it. Okay, you're asking me a question about the domestic application of a law that's best directed to the Department of Justice. It's not a complication. No, it is. Because you're asking me something to opine on something that's in the realm of the Department of Justice in terms of its domestic application. I can tell you that the United States is most certainly confronting terrorist and criminal organizations operating in our hemisphere that pose a grave danger to the United States. Anyone who believes that gangs that flood our country with fentanyl or cocaine are not threats to the United States is not living in reality and certainly does not reflect the opinion of most Americans. The president already said that he was ready to put American troops in Venezuela again. So we're at war right now. So if things don't go well with the Chavistas, you've empowered. When did the president say he was going to put troops in Venezuela? What is your criteria for returning to a military option and putting boots on the floor? I don't recall the president saying he was going to put troops in Venezuela. Where did he say that? Here's President Trump on January 3rd, conducting a press conference with reporters and standing right behind him as Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Well, you know, they always say boots on the ground. So we're not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to have. We had boots on the ground last night at a very high level, actually. We're not afraid of it. We don't mind saying it, but we're going to make sure that that country is run properly. We're not doing this in vain. And here's President Trump the following day on January 4th speaking to reporters on Air Force One. It just sounded like you weighed out another strike, another land strike, at least in Venezuela. You sound like you weighed that out. We didn't need it We were prepared to do a second strike if we needed it We're totally prepared But that's off the table That's off the table now No it's not If they don't behave we will do a second strike The question is the American troops Are they going to be on the ground They're doing any kind of peacekeeping It depends on what happens It depends a little bit on the new administration If you want to call it Back to Senator Duckworth I'm asking you what are your But that's what you said I didn't remember the president said that. Yeah, the president has already said that he was ready to put American troops in Venezuela. No, I think the president has said that he retains the right as commander in chief to protect the United States against any imminent threats. Maybe that involves troops. Maybe that involves air power. We hope, but we don't anticipate that being the case in Venezuela. I worry that you're playing fast and loose with our nation's military. Well, I just gave you testimony here. Let me just say, I just want to conclude by saying that. Yeah, but I just gave you testimony of how well things are moving forward, not as fast as everybody would like. Yeah, but you also said that in six or nine months, if things don't go well, you're going to have to do something else. The president's already said that he's not ruled out the military option. And you've also just said that, yes, we are at war. The president has wartime powers. But every president retains the power to use military to protect... So it's reasonable for me to ask you... And I gave you a very specific example. Every president retains the right to defend the United States against an imminent threat. Yes, if there are Iranian... Just give you an example. Iranian drones deployed in Venezuela that could threaten the United States. We most certainly will address that, even if it's located in Venezuela. But we hope we don't get to that point. We don't expect to get to that point. We're not trending in that direction. That's a fact. But that said, you know, on the one hand, people who are unhappy were cooperating with Vantuela. On the other hand, the one is to go to war with them. We don't need to be in another forever war. And that is the pathway that we are going towards. And let me just say— Well, how are we going towards a forever war if we're dealing with Delce Rodriguez every day? You're not going to ask him to rescind his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That puts Americans in jeopardy. And using their flimsy and, I think, weaselly interpretations of law, The Trump administration might not stop at Venezuela. There might be more regime changes on their wish list. Secretary of State Marco Rubio of Florida is certainly not ruling that out. Here's Senator Brian Schatz, the Democrat of Hawaii, speaking to Marco Rubio. Your comments that Havana should be concerned about the Maduro operation is fueling speculation that this administration will turn its sights to Cuba next. Will you make a public commitment today to rule out U.S. regime change in Cuba? Regime change? Yes. Oh, no, I think we would love to see the regime change. That doesn't mean that we're going to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There's no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime. But you know what we mean by regime change. We don't mean I wish someone else were in charge. When we talk about regime change, we're talking about using the power of the United States, usually kinetic power, but often other kinds of coercion. And I'm not even saying that that's always not in our interest. I'm just saying, I'm not asking you whether we would prefer a different kind of government. I'm asking whether you are trying to precipitate the fall of the current regime. Yeah, but that's statutory. The Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. embargo on Cuba is codified. It was codified in law, and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo. Okay. So I think that is the most important testimony that I think you need to hear from that hearing. And I don't know about you, but pretty much everything I heard makes me uncomfortable, to say the least. And if you share that discomfort, the question now is, what can we do about it? And the answer is the same answer I keep giving for all of this stuff. The answer is Congress. It's always Congress. Congress can change the laws or remove cabinet secretaries and presidents who defy the laws. Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. And the 2001 authorization for the use of military force that was passed very quickly, it was only one paragraph, but it was passed very quickly after 9-11. And it authorized force against anyone the executive branch labels a terrorist. Well, that is clearly still being used and abused to authorize these not-a-wars, which are coming closer and closer to our home shores. Repeal of that authorization for the use of military force was needed decades ago. And if Congress won't make these changes, then we need to change who's in Congress. And so my advice to you is to share your feelings politely and often with all three members of Congress that represent you. You can do so by calling 202-224-3121. And I hope you get active in the 2026 midterm elections. We need the Trump co-conspirators in Congress to fear our wrath. And by that, I mean fear for their jobs. All right, we have no executive producers to thank for this episode. And so I'm going to ask you one more time to please support this show. My costs are going up and my income is going down and that is not sustainable. So please support the show if you can. And thank you as always to everyone who is. I also want to thank my production and research assistant. She really stepped up on this one. Her name is Claire, and she's actually available to be hired. She's looking for more work. So if you're someone who needs production or research assistance with your podcast, reach out to me and I can help you get in touch with Claire. She is one of the best decisions I've ever made. Another one of my brilliant decisions was to hire Pro Podcast Solutions, specifically Mike, to edit this podcast. He makes me sound like I don't have marbles in my mouth. I'd also like to thank Mark at podcastbranding.co. He does our web design and security. Thank you to my sister, Lauren, who does the bookkeeping and our executive producer services. Thank you to dad and Robin who do my taxes and are the biggest fans of this show. And thank you as always to our guardian angel, Brian Karras, who was our artist and we will love and miss him forever. All right, I'm going to do a summary of everything that happened in January. So that will be done as soon as I get finished reading the government funding laws. But in order for me to get paid, I have to have that done by the end of February. So I will talk to you soon. All right, bye. We're surrounded now by liars coming at us through our TV screens. We don't have a domestic spying program. They're content to fight in black and white despite the many in-betweens. We got a president who plays with the facts And then he waves a flag to cover his tracks As if a lie is alright If the end will justify the means Now we are so damn tired Of being lied to The polar ice caps aren't going away We don't think we can deny it Anymore You can stick to your story if you think it flies But we're not keeping quiet anymore We are so damn tired of being lied to Government jobs consume the profits of the private sector. We don't think we can deny it anymore. You can't stick to your story if you think it flies. But we're not keeping quiet anymore. Now we're not keeping quiet. These bills represent common sense, bipartisan solutions that actually solve problems.