CSPAN - Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 4, 2026 11:00-13:20 - CSPAN

02:19:54

Washington Journal

Participants

Main

ben shapiro

dailywire 24:01

kimberly adams

cspan 17:38

ryan berg

24:49

Appearances

donald j trump

admin 02:38

marco rubio

admin 00:33

rosie rios

00:33

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Original World Trade Center bombing and the blind cheek made high-profile politicians, including investigating President Trump himself during the Biden administration.
		So, a case like this, which is basically the importation of drugs to the United States in general, really could be prosecuted anywhere.
		The fact that they gave it to the Southern District of New York, that's where they flew Maduro and his wife, and that's where he's sitting in detention, not a surprise because the Southern District will typically be the first one that the Justice Department looks to in terms of high-profile cases like this that are not geographically specific.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Walk us through the next few days.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What are we going to see as this case develops?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		You'll see Maduro appear in court, along with his wife, at what they call an arraignment, where he gets the initial opportunity to hear the charges that are now public, that are being brought against him, and then he'll enter a plea.
		99% of the time, you plead not guilty, just because that's what you do to buy yourself time.
		You don't plead guilty at the arraignment.
		So, we'll see him on camera, most likely.
		We'll see him enter a not guilty plea, and then things get quiet for a while.
		He will get representation, most likely high-profile defense representation.
		And you'll see then a lot of behind-the-scenes back and forth.
		I think you'll see a flurry of motions made about how exactly Maduro got here yesterday, the use of the military, the fact that he was a sovereign head of a sovereign nation, and whether or not there's international legal implications here.
		You'll get past all that.
		We'll see if it's successful.
		I doubt it will be, actually.
		And then it becomes, like I said, a traditional prosecution of a defendant in the United States being charged with crimes against individuals of the United States, and then it'll kind of go from there.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What sorts of rights does he have in the U.S. justice system as either a foreign person or as a foreign head of state?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		He has all the rights of any criminal defendant.
		So he has the right to counsel.
		If he can't afford counsel, one will be appointed for him in terms of the federal public defender's office, also very, very good attorneys.
		So if he does not want to get someone himself, then the federal government will provide it to him.
		He has all the rights that are subject to constitutional amendments like the due process rights in terms of being able to see the evidence brought against him, witnesses brought against him, basically to see the prosecution's case.
		So these cases are, we don't do cases in secret right here in the United States.
		We do them in public.
		And so he has all the rights that a U.S. criminal defendant will have.
		Now, he will try to exercise the argument that he has some additional rights that he has.
		The first one will be that he has immunity, right?
		That he's a foreign head of state, that we recognize immunity.
		We don't do this kind of thing.
		We don't just pull out leaders of other countries, even if we say that they're illegitimate and they're dictators.
		The U.S. will say he's illegitimate, that he does not enjoy that right to sovereign immunity because he's not the properly installed leader of Venezuela.
		This will go to the courts.
		The courts will most likely not want to get involved.
		They're going to say this is a foreign policy matter.
		And how he got here, the use of the military, that's between Congress and the White House.
		And whether or not he was a legitimate head of state, that's up to the State Department.
		We're not going to get involved.
		So I think you're going to see that all this litigation about what rights he's going to say he has as a foreign leader, I don't think he's going to get very far with any of those.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Representative Thomas Massey tweeted this yesterday.
		If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn't be tweeting that they've arrested the president of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.
		What do you think of that take?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the date of the law doesn't really make a difference.
		It's a legitimate law.
		So I don't know about citing the fact that a law is old doesn't make it legitimate.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But I think the largest point was what is the legal basis for arresting a foreign leader on foreign soil.
unidentified		Right.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		So look, it's a very gray area.
		We do have a parallel here, which was the extraction of Manuel Nuriega from Panama in 1989.
		Extremely similar circumstances, right?
		You had a foreign head of state who was indicted in the United States.
		In his case, there were some drugs.
		It was mostly money laundering and racketeering charges.
		He was considered by the U.S. to be an illegitimate foreign leader.
		In this case, he was a military leader that had installed himself.
		And the U.S. went in without authorization from Congress and took him out.
		And then he faced trial in the United States and wound up going to jail for about 17 years.
		So a lot of parallels there.
		And Nuriega tried all these arguments about why he was exactly what I think Maduro will argue.
		I'm a foreign head of state.
		I enjoy immunity.
		I was extracted illegally.
		This was a military operation without congressional authorization.
		And none of those got Nuriega very far.
		The courts, again, they didn't want to get involved with those questions.
		As they said, those are questions for the other branches of government.
		Congress and the White House can fight over whether or not it was a proper use of the military.
		We only care about him now as a criminal defendant sitting in court.
		So I think Maduro is going to be basically treated the same way in New York.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		If you have questions for Joseph Moreno about the legal aspects of this situation, you can call in.
		Our line for Republicans is 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You kind of mentioned this idea of whether if we think a leader is illegitimate, if it is legal to go after them.
		There have been several critics who are arguing that using this same logic, Putin can go and arrest Zelensky in Ukraine or vice versa.
		Some countries might want to go into Israel and arrest Benjamin Netanyahu or something else or even President Trump himself.
		What do you think of these arguments?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Well, they touch on some legitimate points, right?
		The White House is sort of making two arguments here.
		One, they're saying that Maduro was the head of a terrorist organization and that under previous grants of authority by Congress, particularly the AUMF, which is the authorization for the use of military force, which let us go into Afghanistan, it was very broad and allowed the U.S. to engage terrorist groups.
		So on the one hand, he's saying this was ahead of a terrorist group, and therefore we had the authorization to get him that way.
		But he's also saying this was primarily a law enforcement operation, that this was head by the FBI and the DEA and the Justice Department.
		And it was all about getting a criminal defendant, and the military was basically just a means to an end, that they were just assisting civilian law enforcement in getting him.
		But it's really a civilian mission.
		So to the latter point, if we accept that's a legitimate argument, then the White House can basically bypass Congress all the time because they'll just indict people.
		So to your point, they'll just say, okay, we're indicting all these different heads of state for all these different crimes that we allege that they committed against the United States.
		And now we're going to use this mechanism.
		We're going to use the military to get them and bring them back to the U.S.
		And we're going to bypass Congress.
		That's the concern here.
		So I think a lot of people who very legitimately say this was a good operation.
		This was run very well by the military.
		Maduro's a bad guy, and it's right that he face prosecution.
		Those are completely legitimate feelings and arguments.
		And I share many of them.
		But us legal guys, we do get into the weeds about how this was done, whether it was done properly, and what does it mean for the future.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There were also actual strikes on Venezuela as part of this operation, which several members of Congress have said those strikes were illegal under both international and U.S. law.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Where do you come down on that?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a very gray area, right?
		Those strikes, which have been going on for months now, culminated in the extraction of Maduro yesterday.
		So there's been a lot of debate for months now about what rules of engagement were being relied on there, Whether or not the military should have been, again, effectively pursuing law enforcement means by engaging what they claim to be drug smugglers in open waters.
		Historically, that was the mission of the Coast Guard, and they would protect the U.S. coast of drugs that were coming in.
		And sometimes the military would support the Coast Guard.
		And that was very common and very considered non-controversial.
		Using the military to engage foreign vessels in open waters, that's controversial.
		So again, these issues that have come up with the extraction of Maduro in the last 24 hours are not brand new because we've been building toward this for the last six months in terms of using our Navy to engage foreign vessels that are not flying a foreign flag on the allegation that they're criminals.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's go to our callers.
		John is in Esopus, New York, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
		I mean, let's say this gentleman, and he's your guest.
		How would you ever invite somebody like this as a guest?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you have a question for Mr. Moreno?
unidentified		Yeah, I do.
		Say something good about the administration and our government today for what they did today, the military and what they did today.
		And are you defending this guy they captured?
		Are you one of the former?
		Thank God you're former because you don't belong.
		You have nothing good to say about America.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Let me address that, John.
		As a fellow New Yorker, originally, I am very proud to say that I have served in the Army for the last 25 years, both on active duty in Iraq and in Europe and in Africa.
		And I currently serve in the reserves as a JAG officer.
		So I'm actually quite proud of our government, our president, and exactly how the Army and the Navy carried out this operation.
		I think there's a tremendous amount of good here.
		Maduro was a bad guy.
		These are legitimate criminal cases against him.
		And I'm glad to see him in a holding facility in New York.
		As a lawyer, I think these are legitimate questions about what the basis of this operation was.
		And there's good and bad arguments on both sides.
		The White House has very good arguments about why they believe they were justified in doing this.
		On the other hand, Democrats raised some significant questions about whether or not notifications were made and what Congress's legitimate role here is.
		So me personally, I mean, it doesn't matter what party I am.
		I have plenty of good to say about the White House and the military.
		But I'll also note that the opponents on the Democrat side raise good points.
		And I think these are all legitimate points to discuss.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another New Yorker has a question for you on X. Joe Delmonaco asks, what happens if Maduro is acquitted by a jury?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		I mean, great question.
		Where does he go?
		I mean, he's set free, right?
		We don't keep people in prison who are acquitted of charges.
		We're not going to send him to Guantanamo or something like that.
		That's really off the table here.
		He'll be released.
		I guess the question is, where is he released?
		Will Venezuela want him back?
		Will another country like China or Russia, which seem to be backing Venezuela, will they provide him some kind of sanctuary?
		I think it'll be a few years before we know this, because I think it's going to take a long time to get to trial and then through trial.
		But it's a great question.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another question from X. Do you agree that Congress should not be notified of U.S. operations involving strikes by the military in another country because they have leakers in Congress?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		This is referencing what the President as well as Secretary of Defense said yesterday.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		So you've seen a lot of reference in the last 24 hours to the War Powers Resolution, or sometimes called the War Powers Act.
		And it precisely touches on when Congress should be notified of operations.
		And it makes the point that if the president feels he must act imminently without notifying Congress first, he has to do so within 48 hours afterward.
		So it absolutely recognizes that there are needs sometimes for the White House to act quickly and decisively, either because the window of opportunity is there and it could close, because of possible leakers, and the fact that you don't want to advertise operations in advance because then they could fail.
		So it's not so much that Congress always has to be notified, but they are supposed to be notified and briefed truthfully within 48 hours of something like this happening.
		And then there are further protections that give Congress the right to either approve continuing those operations or to shut it down.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Beth is in Florida on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Beth.
unidentified		Hi, I've got so many questions.
		I'll try to limit it.
		Number one, on September 2nd, when we bombed that first GoFast boat, we were told that was fentanyl.
		Where is fentanyl in this indictment?
		And number two, we're basing this gun charge on a 19, what is 34 law, and that was in what about machine guns?
		But the Supreme Court has now ruled on bump stocks that virtually make a machine or a semi-automatic an automatic.
		Where did the guns that they're charging them with having and conspiring about, where were they manufactured?
		And if they were manufactured in the U.S., aren't we just as guilty of sending them guns as they are of sending us fentanyl?
		And who has died in this country from taking fentanyl that was legal?
		They've committed the crime by buying an illegal drug.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Beth, let me do my best with those.
		First off, on the fentanyl point, you're right, there's no mention of fentanyl here.
		We did hear a lot about that.
		This is focused on cocaine.
		And fentanyl comes over the border through other countries and we think largely originates from China.
		So you're right.
		This is apples and oranges here.
		And whether or not that was a purposeful reference to fentanyl to kind of get it on people's minds or if it was a legitimate mistake, I don't know.
		But you're absolutely right.
		There's a discrepancy here between what we were told for a long time about one kind of illegal narcotic and then what was actually charged here, which is about cocaine.
		Equally destructive, but you're right, not the same thing.
		As far as the machine gun charges, again, I'm not really all that impressed with the fact that it's an old law.
		We have lots of old laws.
		And as long as they're legitimate, they haven't been struck down or repealed by Congress, I don't see the relevance in the fact that they've been on the books for a long time.
		And as far as the origin of these machine guns, that I can't speak to.
		I don't know if they're American originated or not.
		I can tell you that the law does prohibit machine guns versus semi-automatic weapons, which are generally legal but controlled.
		And so I'll kind of, hopefully I did my best there to address your concerns.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		If I understand Beth correctly, the idea that if the Supreme Court allows bump stocks, why would machine guns not be allowed and be worthy of these charges?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		That's a perfectly legitimate point for Maduro and his wife to raise in court.
		Why not, you know, as part of attacking the prosecution, make that exact point about why these charges are not legit because of conflicting Supreme Court rulings.
		Maybe he'll be successful, maybe he won't, but if I was his defense lawyer, I'd make that argument.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Clint is in Arlington, Texas on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Clint.
unidentified		Yes.
		How are you doing, Mr. Moreno?
		A couple questions.
		I was just going to say, okay, Trump pardoned the former Honduran president, I think, in November for like the same thing.
		So it's okay for him to do it, but I mean, it's okay for Maduro.
		I mean, it's not okay for Maduro to sell drugs, but it's okay for the former Haduran president to sell drugs.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		No, Clint, I fully get it.
		It does seem really inconsistent.
		And the pardon power, I mean, I've actually been pretty critical of it.
		I think that presidents of both parties have really overused the pardon power, which was, I think, originally intended to be used very sparingly.
		And now we've seen business associates, we've seen family members, and we've seen some pretty extreme cases which look awful, and yet they're pardoned by president, whether it's this president or the former one or former ones.
		So I have actually been advocating for a while that this is an issue that I really do think Congress should take on about either putting some more controls or getting rid of the pardon power.
		Now, it'll take an amendment to the Constitution, which is not easy, but I think that originally, remember, the federal government was much smaller when the Constitution was created, and the law enforcement of the function, the law enforcement function of the federal government, was almost non-existent, right?
		I mean, crimes were prosecuted at the state level, and they've grown over 200 years.
		So I think much as the law enforcement function of the federal government has changed, I think the concept and the use of the pardon power should also be subject to change.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You kind of touched on this earlier, but it's a question on X from Riddle.
		What's the proof Maduro's wife did anything wrong?
		Can other countries kidnap Trump and Melania?
		This is from Jennifer in Oak Park, Illinois.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Well, Jennifer, as far as the First Lady Maduro, I think that we'll have to find out in court.
		You know, the indictment is very high level, right?
		It treats them more or less equally, along with others that are named in the indictment.
		So I think the details of who did what are absolutely fair game.
		And I think as long as the Maduros plead not guilty and they want to fight these charges, I think they should put the prosecution to the test and say, okay, put your money where your mouth is.
		Explain to a jury and a judge who did what and what the evidence is.
		And I think that's completely fair game.
unidentified		Oh, go ahead.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		The other point was, remind me again.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Could other countries kidnap Trump and Melania?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, you would hope that wouldn't happen.
		But I guess, you know, again, you always run the risk when you operate in a gray area like this and you take actions that are largely unprecedented, not completely, but largely unprecedented, that you've now set a pattern that others can adopt and say, well, if the leader of the United States does something, why can't another country do it?
		And so again, I think this is where us lawyers do come in handy because we help, we try to help create some boundaries and some parameters about the use of these powers.
		Because otherwise, yes, it becomes the Wild West and a free-for-all.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Richard is in Brazil, Indiana, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Mr. Marino, two quick questions for you.
		The first being, from a legal standpoint, you referenced earlier the situation with the invasion of Panama and Myanmar Noriega in the early 1980s.
		Now, my question with that is: under that particular instance, do you not agree that that instance didn't need congressional approval because the legislature of the nation of Panama declared a state of war against the U.S., thus enacting hostilities that didn't need congressional approval?
		And secondly, do you not feel that a legal international precedent is now set that says that countries such as China can now go into Taiwan because Chinese sovereign law was violated and do as they please with regime change?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Hey, morning, Richard.
		As far the Noriega case, yes, Panama had declared hostilities against the U.S. and we had not reciprocated.
		So there was no proper declaration of war or even a congressional authorization in the Panama operation.
		And Noriega made all those arguments about why he felt his prosecution was illegitimate, and the courts weren't impressed.
		So they're legitimate arguments, but he didn't get him a lot of traction.
		I mean, those charges went forward like any other criminal defendant.
		So he wasn't really helped by that.
		And as far as international law, remember, international law consists of UN declarations, consists of treaties signed by countries.
		But as far as who enforces them, it's kind of loose, right?
		I mean, so if China were to invade Taiwan, you know, it can make the defense, well, Trump invaded Venezuela, so we can do it.
		How countries react to that, there's no legally binding way to say, well, now it's okay.
		Countries could feel it's okay, and countries could feel it's not okay, and they will react accordingly.
		And there's really no governing body to say who's right and who's wrong.
		So sure, I think that when you do something, you give other countries the ability to say, well, you know, again, one country did it, so I can do it.
		But at the end of the day, it's not so much a law or a precedent as it is how countries react on a case-by-case basis.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Don is in Brooklyn, New York, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Don.
unidentified		I'm having a hell of a hard time trying to understand where you're going with this, because it's not like there's a law, a body of laws and a procedural mechanism by which this could have been done or should have been done.
		This is just something that Trump's ringed up, and after the fact, they're coming up with this whole judicial process.
		So it's America manifesting its power, not in favor of some international law, but really once again, simply because it can.
		And the shoe can be on the other foot very easily at any time.
		And we can regret that we set the precedent for this kind of business.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		No, Don, I hear you.
		There is no law the administration can point to that says this operation, this kind of thing, is allowed.
		I mean, they're kind of, I used the word creative yesterday on another show.
		They're kind of making it up as they go along.
		You're right.
		So whether or not another country can now say, well, you set the precedent and we're going to do it, they can say that.
		And how the U.S. responds to that will be, again, what the circumstances are.
		But you're right.
		It does take away the sort of moral high ground that the U.S. can say, well, now we've done it, so it's going to be hard for us to say someone else can't do the same.
		That's legit.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James is in Akron, Ohio, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Yes.
		Here, let me get you off of the speaker.
		I'm sorry.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That's okay.
unidentified		I have, I want to make a statement.
		I have two questions.
		The statement I agree with you on the pardon situation.
		It should have to go before a court or some type of a committee before a pardon is accepted.
		It should be reasoning, I mean, serious reasoning why with that.
		But my two questions is this.
		This year, Donald Trump either fired or the great deal of the best attorneys that the federal government have resigned or quit or was fired.
		So who's going to represent the United States in this case?
		That's one.
		And the other thing is this, you know, Trump is saying now that he's looking at Cuba.
		Well, you know, we have open relationships under Obama with Cuba.
		And that was one of the first acts that Trump did under his first term as president was to close the relationships and made it more difficult for people to visit Cuba after 50 years of not being able to visit at all, other than going through England or somewhere and then going to Cuba and coming back.
		I'm just wondering about those two things about the relationship with Cuba that he's pretty much killed.
		And he also, in the process, it kind of hurt the economy worse than it ever was.
		Right now, they have a lot of difficulty because of our laws.
		But I would like to know who's going to represent the United States in this case and his position on Cuba.
		Thank you.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		James, quickly on your point about pardons, I actually really like the idea of a congressional approval process where the president proposes a pardon and Congress has to sign off.
		So I think that's a great point.
		As far as who represents the United States, I can assure you that there's plenty of us lawyers in plenty of cities in this country.
		So there's never a dearth of us.
		And yes, Trump has fired or has seen quit a whole number of lawyers from the government this year.
		But believe me, there's plenty more that are happy to take on this case because if they win, it sort of makes a career for yourself.
		You can brag for the rest of your legal career that I was on the team that prosecuted a high-profile case like that.
		So I don't think there's going to be a problem finding attorneys to do this.
		And as far as Cuba versus Venezuela versus elsewhere, you're touching on the fact that we have given the president, all presidents, a lot of latitude in terms of foreign policy, right?
		And I think this goes to a larger question about whether Congress over decades now has gotten a little too hands-off.
		Congress passes these very broad statutes that give a lot of latitude to then how the executive branch runs with them.
		There's a lot of regulations which are enacted on the executive side have just grown massively.
		So I think whether it's this situation, whether it's the future of dealing with Cuba, or just foreign relations in general, this is an opportunity for Congress to say, all right, if we don't like the way things are going, if we think the president of either party has just too much power and too much latitude, this is the time to do it.
		And it would be a great opportunity in one of those rare instances to see Republicans and Democrats maybe put their heads together and work together to kind of set some more parameters for what the president, this one, and future presidents can actually do.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Daryl is in Dayton, Ohio on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Daryl.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can hear you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your question for Mr. Moran?
unidentified		I have a question on the war on terror.
		If you take the last 22 years, you got 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan.
		I'm going to give you about 8,000 people was killed.
		Okay?
		Now, fentanyl, fentanyl alone, because they don't even count Heron and Cocaine.
		You don't see them.
		But fentanyl alone in the last seven years has killed about a million Americans.
		Okay?
		So what makes you think that it shouldn't be a war on drugs?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Darrell, I'm old enough.
		I'm dating myself here, but I remember the last war on drugs, right, under President Reagan in the 80s.
		I think it's a noble cause.
		I think that it's a scourge.
		I have nine children myself.
		I would be horrified if any of them were exposed to whether it's fentanyl or any other illegal drugs.
		And I think it's an absolutely vital focus of our law enforcement system.
		And I think there's been plenty of controversy about whether or not the war on terror was effective, whether or not we should have spent so much time in Afghanistan and Iraq.
		I served there myself, as did my wife.
		I have mixed feelings about the success of both those operations.
		But I think you're touching on two obviously important things.
		And again, this is where the President and Congress need to get together because resources are limited.
		There's only a certain number of prosecutors, a certain number of FBI agents.
		And so, again, where do we want to focus our resources?
		We're on drugs, we're on financial crimes, we're on terrorism.
		All legit, but again, we have only certain limited resources and we have to focus them somewhere.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And we only had limited time, but thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us this morning, Joseph Moreno, who's a former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice's National Security Division.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate your time this morning.
unidentified		My pleasure.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Later on this morning, we're going to continue our coverage of this story with a closer look at the challenges facing the United States in the aftermath of Nicolas Maduro's ouster in Venezuela.
		That conversation is going to be with Ryan Berg, Director of the Americas program and the head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at CSIS.
		But first, we're going to take more of your reaction to yesterday's military action in Venezuela and President Trump's declaration that the U.S. will now run the country in the interim.
		You can start calling in now.
		Our phone line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Active and former military can call in at 202-748-8003.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic, and to the desk in the Oval Office.
		C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
		No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
		C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
		Advance the mission.
		Donate today at c-SPAN.org forward slash donate.
		Together, we keep democracy in view.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
		C-SPANshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
		According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced: 28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
		Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
		Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
		No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
		Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're taking your calls and comments on the aftermath of the U.S. military strikes in Venezuela and the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, as well as President Trump, saying that the United States will be running the country in the interim.
		We're going to start with John in Mansfield, Texas on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yes, one of the things I struggle with today is even as a Democrat, I prefer to see any politician held accountable by the rule of law.
		In this situation, you have a president who violated the UN Charter.
		He's violated several things, you know, ignoring federal rulings within our government.
		What I struggle with, like with many of the callers, it's opinion-based.
		People say this should happen because drugs are killing people in our country or these other very parameters about the use of these powers, because otherwise, yes, it becomes the Wild West and a free-for-all.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Richard is in Brazil, Indiana, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Mr. Marino, two quick questions for you.
		The first being from a legal standpoint, you referenced earlier the situation with the invasion of Panama and Myanmar Noriega in the early 1980s.
		Now, my question with that is, under that particular instance, do you not agree that that instance didn't need congressional approval because the legislature of the nation of Panama declared a state of war against the U.S., thus enacting hostilities that didn't need congressional approval?
		And secondly, do you not feel that a legal international precedent is now set that says that countries such as China can now go into Taiwan because Chinese sovereign law was violated and do as they please with regime change?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Hey, morning, Richard.
		As far the Noriega case, yes, Panama had declared hostilities against the U.S. and we had not reciprocated.
		So there was no proper declaration of war or even a congressional authorization in the Panama operation.
		Noriega made all those arguments about why he felt his prosecution was illegitimate and the courts weren't impressed.
		So they're legitimate arguments, but he didn't get him a lot of traction.
		I mean, those charges went forward like any other criminal defendant.
		So he wasn't really helped by that.
		And as far as international law, remember, international law consists of UN declarations, consists of treaties signed by countries.
		But as far as who enforces them, it's kind of loose, right?
		I mean, so if China were to invade Taiwan, you know, it can make the defense, well, Trump invaded Venezuela, so we can do it.
		How countries react to that, there's no legally binding way to say, well, now it's okay.
		Countries could feel it's okay, and countries could feel it's not okay, and they will react accordingly.
		And there's really no governing body to say who's right and who's wrong.
		So sure, I think that when you do something, you give other countries the ability to say, well, you know, again, one country did it, so I can do it.
		But at the end of the day, it's not so much a law or a precedent as it is how countries react on a case-by-case basis.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Don is in Brooklyn, New York, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Don.
unidentified		I'm having a hell of a hard time trying to understand where you're going with this, because it's not like there's a law, a body of laws and a procedural mechanism by which this could have been done or should have been done.
		This is just something that Trump dreamed up.
		And after the fact, they're coming up with this whole judicial process.
		So it's America manifesting its power, not in favor of some international law, but really once again, simply because it can.
		And the shoe can be on the other foot very easily at any time.
		And we can regret that we set the precedent for this kind of business.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		No, Don, I hear you.
		There is no law the administration can point to that says this operation, this kind of thing, is allowed.
		I mean, they're kind of, I used the word creative yesterday on another show.
		They're kind of making it up as they go along.
		You're right.
		So whether or not another country can now say, well, you set the precedent, we're going to do it.
		They can say that.
		And how the U.S. responds to that will be, again, what the circumstances are.
		But you're right.
		It does take away the sort of moral high ground that the U.S. can say, well, now we've done it, so it's going to be hard for us to say someone else can't do the same.
		That's legit.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James is in Akron, Ohio, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Yes.
		Here, let me get you off of the speaker.
		I'm sorry.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That's okay.
unidentified		I want to make a statement.
		I have two questions.
		The statement, I agree with you on the pardon situation.
		It should have to go before a court or some type of a committee before a pardon is accepted.
		It should be reasoning, I mean, serious reasoning why with that.
		But my two questions is this.
		This year, Donald Trump either fired or a great deal of the best attorneys that the federal government have resigned or quit or was fired.
		So who's going to represent the United States in this case?
		That's one.
		And the other thing is this.
		You know, Trump is saying now that he's looking at Cuba.
		Well, you know, we have opened relationships under Obama with Cuba.
		And that was one of the first acts that Trump did under his first term as president was to close the relationships and made it more difficult for people to visit Cuba after 50 years of not being able to visit at all, other than going through England or somewhere and then going to Cuba and coming back.
		I'm just wondering about those two things, about the relationship with Cuba, that he's pretty much appealed.
		And he also, in the process, it kind of hurt the economy worse than it ever was.
		Right now, they have a lot of difficulty because of our laws.
		But I would like to know who's going to represent the United States in this case and his position on Cuba.
		Thank you.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		James, quickly on your point about pardons, I actually really like the idea of a congressional approval process where the president proposes a pardon and Congress has to sign off.
		So I think that's a great point.
		As far as who represents the United States, I can assure you that there's plenty of us lawyers in plenty of cities in this country.
		So there's never a dearth of us.
		And yes, Trump has fired or has seen quit a whole number of lawyers from the government this year.
		But believe me, there's plenty more that are happy to take on this case because if they win, it sort of makes a career for yourself.
		You can brag for the rest of your legal career that I was on the team that prosecuted a high-profile case like that.
		So I don't think there's going to be a problem finding attorneys to do this.
		And as far as Cuba versus Venezuela versus elsewhere, you're touching on the fact that we have given the president, all presidents, a lot of latitude in terms of foreign policy, right?
		And I think this goes to a larger question about whether Congress over decades now has gotten a little too hands-off.
		Congress passes these very broad statutes that give a lot of latitude to then how the executive branch runs with them.
		And regulations which are enacted on the executive side have just grown massively.
		So I think whether it's this situation, whether it's the future of dealing with Cuba, or just foreign relations in general, this is an opportunity for Congress to say, all right, if we don't like the way things are going, if we think the president of either party has just too much power and too much latitude, this is the time to do it.
		And it would be a great opportunity in one of those rare instances to see Republicans and Democrats maybe put their heads together and work together to kind of set some more parameters for what the president, this one, and future presidents can actually do.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Darryl is in Dayton, Ohio on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Daryl.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can hear you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your question for Mr. Moran?
unidentified		I have a question on the war on terror.
		If you take the last 22 years, you got 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan.
		I'm going to give you about 8,000 people was killed.
		Okay?
		Now, fentanyl, fentanyl alone, because they don't even count Heron and Coke, you don't see them.
		But fentanyl alone in the last seven years has killed about a million Americans.
		Okay?
		So what make you think that it shouldn't be a war on drugs?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼		Darryl, I'm old enough.
		I'm dating myself here, but I remember the last war on drugs, right, under President Reagan in the 80s.
		I think it's a noble cause.
		I think that it's a scourge.
		I have nine children myself.
		I would be horrified if any of them were exposed to whether it's fentanyl or any other illegal drugs.
		And I think it's an absolutely vital focus of our law enforcement system.
		And I think there's been plenty of controversy about whether or not the war on terror was effective, whether or not we should have spent so much time in Afghanistan and Iraq.
		I served there myself, as did my wife.
		I have mixed feelings about the success of both those operations.
		But I think you're touching on two obviously important things.
		And again, this is where the President and Congress need to get together because resources are limited.
		There's only a certain number of prosecutors, a certain number of FBI agents.
		And so, again, where do we want to focus our resources?
		We're on drugs.
		We're on financial crimes.
		We're on terrorism.
		All legit, but again, we have only certain limited resources and we have to focus them somewhere.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And we only had limited time, but thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us this morning, Joseph Moreno, who's a former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice's National Security Division.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate your time this morning.
unidentified		My pleasure.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Later on this morning, we're going to continue our coverage of this story with a closer look at the challenges facing the United States in the aftermath of Nicolas Maduro's ouster in Venezuela.
		That conversation is going to be with Ryan Berg, Director of the Americas Program and the head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at CSIS.
		But first, we're going to take more of your reaction to yesterday's military action in Venezuela and President Trump's declaration that the U.S. will now run the country in the interim.
		You can start calling in now.
		Our phone line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Active and former military can call in at 202-748-8003.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic, and to the desk in the Oval Office.
		C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
		No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
		C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
		Advance the mission.
		Donate today at c-SPAN.org forward slash donate.
		Together, we keep democracy in view.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		c-span official media partner of america 250. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at C-SPANShop.org.
		In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
		According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
		28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
		Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
		Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
		No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
		Unfiltered.
		Every day on the C-SPAN networks.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're taking your calls and comments on the aftermath of the U.S. military strikes in Venezuela and the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, as well as President Trump saying that the United States will be running the country in the interim.
		We're going to start with John in Mansfield, Texas on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yes, one of the things I struggle with today is even as a Democrat, I prefer to see any politician held accountable by the rule of law.
		In this situation, you have a president who violated the UN Charter.
		He's violated several things, you know, ignoring federal, you know, rulings within our government.
		What I struggle with, like with many of the callers, it's opinion-based.
		People say this should happen because drugs are killing people in our country or these other various opinionated reasons.
		What I would hope to see is even with Biden's withdrawal of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton lying to the American people, I would really like to see politicians get held accountable by the law no matter what the opinion of the day is, no matter what party you are.
		And in this case, it's ridiculous because you have somebody who violated the UN, and I really would like to see them hold him accountable.
		He's basically taking oil reserves from another country for profit.
		And I just struggle with the fact that people can't look at the law and they look at their opinions over the law.
		And that's all I have to say.
		I just struggle with that whole concept.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Calvin is in Winston-Salem, North Carolina on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Calvin.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		So January 6th, the Obama subsidies that expired on December 31st.
		The Epstein files that have both parties united around what to do about it.
		The first executive order when the current president signs is pardoning all of those who were involved in the January 6th revolt insurrection.
		Now, I mention those things because if I were him and I'm not, and I'm glad that I'm not, I would do something that would take all the public's attention off of the things I just mentioned and start a debate and have this sort of controversy going where we're not thinking about health care.
		We're not thinking about rule of law that applied to him on January 6th.
		And the Epstein files, hmm, was he there?
		Was he not there?
		How involved?
		So I think it was a very strategic political move.
		And of course, the bottom line is he did it because we can.
		If you're the most powerful nation in the world, international law and the U.N., and I'm sad to say, even the Constitution doesn't necessarily guide someone whose mind is made up to do whatever it is he wants to do.
		And I'll say this in closing, Kimberly.
		He wants to rebuild Venezuela.
		He can't even build the part of the White House that he destroyed.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		David is in Atlantic Beach, New York on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Well, Kimberly, I know you're very careful and guarded when people are off topic.
		That gentleman did not say one thing that was on topic, but I think that shows where your loyalty and stripes are.
		Pars Maduro, he was a dictator.
		He forged the last election in his favor after he was.
		Make sure that you're going directly into your another dictator.
		He supports Cuba, one of the most wretched governments only 90 miles from our country.
		And people are suffering in Cuba as a Cuban-American.
		I can tell you that that is completely unacceptable.
		So Trump, he did the way Democrats wanted in and out.
		He did the right thing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's go to Jacqueline in Montgomery, Alabama on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Jacqueline.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you so much.
		I believe that this falls in line with Trump, and the Republican is giving him this unlimited power, no Supreme Court checks, and he just feels that he can do what he wants to do.
		This is a violation of the rule of law, lack of information, communication with Congress.
		The big eight did not know anything.
		They're totally flabbergasted about this.
		United States does not have a history of going in overthrowing leaders.
		There's a proper way to do everything.
		So we're no better at this point than Putin going into Ukraine.
		And what about the people of Venezuela?
		What do they really want?
		What is right and what is fair to them?
		It's all about diversion, chaos, and taking over all to taunt Iran and China.
		This man is dangerous.
		He's not stable.
		He's unchained.
		And he has no respect for our Constitution and no respect for the law.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jacqueline mentioned the notification of Congress or lack thereof in this case.
		Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as President Trump, spoke about notifying Congress before the attacks on Friday night during that press conference on Saturday.
		Let's listen.
marco rubio ▲ ● ▼		We call members of Congress immediately after.
		This was not the kind of mission that you can do congressional notification on.
		It was a trigger-based mission in which conditions had to be met night after night.
		We watched and monitored that for a number of days.
		So it's just simply not the kind of mission you can call people and say, hey, we may do this at some point in the next 15 days.
		But it's largely a law enforcement function.
		Remember, at the end of the day, at its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job.
		Now, there are broader policy implications here, but it's just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify because it endangers the mission.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		If I could add one thing to that, Congress has a tendency to leak.
		This would not be good.
		If they leaked, General, I think it would have been maybe a very different result.
		But I have to say, they knew we were coming at some point.
		A lot of ships out there, they sort of knew we were coming.
		But Congress will leak, and we don't want leakers.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls.
		Darrell is in North Dakota on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Darryl.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN in America.
		God bless America.
		They did the right thing on what they're doing.
		They were going after drugs.
		They were going after to cut the oil off and everything.
		But people aren't getting the whole story, and they're jumping on bits and pieces of everything.
		Trump was right.
		There are leakers in the government, and everybody fights.
		Our judicial system has been weaponized with, you know, we're broken in our judicial system.
		We're broken on everything.
		And what Trump did is for the drugs, if people take and be like a baker and everything.
		Okay, cocaine, yes.
		Fentanyl comes from China, yes.
		All the drugs are coming over the border from Mexico, but everything is, you know, you bake a cake.
		You need flour, you need sugar, you need salt, whatever, and everything.
		You need different ingredients.
		Cocaine is just one of the ingredients in the drugs that are killing our people.
		You know, we have freedom of speech, but now we also have freedom of choice.
		Those people who are taking those drugs have the choice to take those drugs.
		I agree with that.
		But it's a money portion of it.
		But if they take and they slip fentanyl in that cocaine that you're sniffing up your nose and everything, then, you know, they're killing you.
		If your child or somebody gets a hold of it, that they slip it in different things.
		We're going through the hemp, the drug portion of it.
		So, yes, I believe Venezuela's strike was good.
		And we also got to realize that this country is a country of laws, but we're a one-law, not Sharia law.
		And the military is apolitical, so they're not political.
		So there's their portion of where they're at.
		All this stuff started back in Vietnam, and it's continued all the way up till today and everything.
		This is ground how they all begin.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Joseph in Daytona Beach, Florida on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joseph.
unidentified		Yes, I was wondering why we want to spend all this money, regardless of Maduro, trying to run another country when we've got so many problems over here.
unidentified		Why don't we just double down on enforcing the drug dealers over here and then try to get the addicts some help so they can have a better life?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		David is in Frenchlick, Indiana on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I was hoping to speak to Mr. Moreno, who I thought was very eloquent and thankful for his service.
		The initial indictment was in, I think it was March 23rd, 2020.
		That would be under the Biden administration.
		Obviously, there had to be some investigations in the Trump years and probably prior to that.
		Why I'm curious why the Biden administration didn't do anything in four years if they had an indictment.
		Oh, wait a second.
		They were too busy trying to put Trump in jail and worrying about that.
		No succeeding there.
		So in regards to notifying Congress, there's so much hate for Trump that, of course it would be leaked.
		And I would like to know the last time the president actually went to Congress for the War Powers Act.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, next up is Antonio in Worcester, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Antonio.
unidentified		Hi, thank you.
		Good morning.
		Yeah, my thoughts on this are that I think that it was a warranted move, considering that we live in consequential times where the global order is moving from a unipolar to a multipolar structure with the rise of China, Russia trying to reassert itself, the Europeans trying to seek relevance, India trying to figure out how to take advantage of its demographic power.
		And Trump and his team have been very clear in prioritizing reestablishing dominance in the Western Hemisphere as a foundation for the U.S. remaining one of the major poles in this restructure that's happening.
		And Maduro and his regime, through their exercise of power, using the drug trade and suppressing its own population, has provided Trump with a theater of operation to unmistakably advance this hemispheric agenda.
		And it is a major strategic advantage in these times to control the Venezuela oil reserves.
		China and Russia were pursuing their own strategies to lay claim to this resource.
		And all values well in oil soon will now hit the market price in the U.S. dollars, create an upward trend for demand of the dollar, strengthening the U.S. dollar.
		And so I'm okay with it.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The previous caller asked about the last time that a president went to Congress for the War Powers Act.
		And I was looking and I found a bit about this at theconstitutioncenter.org, which says, since 1973, most presidents have ignored parts or all of the war powers resolutions.
		According to the Congressional Research Service, presidents have taken a broader view of the commander-in-chief power to use military force abroad.
		They have variously asserted sources of authority and other statutes that do not specifically cite the WPR.
		Additionally, they have relied on the commander-in-chief power itself and the president's foreign affairs at their authority under Article 2 of the Constitution.
		Next up is Lily in Red Bank, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Lily.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just want to say I watched the show yesterday morning, and I want to know where are all those people that said this had nothing to do with oil.
		Yes, I agree.
		If the guy did commit crimes on drug trafficking, yes, he should be held accountable.
		But as far as the oil is concerned, I just think this is a whole bigger picture, and people need to wake up and smell the coffee.
		Thank you, and have a good day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Richard is in Rural Hall, North Carolina, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Yeah, well, first thing, let's see, I've been waiting so long, I kind of got messed up.
		That's all right.
		Okay, first thing is all the Democrats talking about Trump going into Venezuela, and now China's going to go into Taiwan.
		Well, Russia went into Ukraine, used sex as a weapon, kidnapped their children, and they're part of the UN.
		The UN is a joke.
		The only people that the UN tried to do anything against is us.
		Okay?
		So the UN's a joke.
		And I'll just leave it there.
		Well, the Democrats are a joke, too, because they're sticking up for all this.
		And the American people do see it.
		And you can give me all the statistics you want.
		I do not believe them because you haven't been right in God knows how many years.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		George is in Benita, California on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, George.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
		Thank you for having me.
		My thing of this observation of all this is basically I'm noticing that you have, for example, a president who's our president, unfortunately, is a convicted felon, the criminal, taking on another criminal from Venezuela who he himself basically didn't respect the election.
		And now that he's taken him out, okay, basically, he's already commented that the duly elected president of that country, which is in Venezuela, she's not going to be allowed to rule out.
		He wants to take care of this.
		Again, that goes for the oil industry.
		Now, there's a lot of murky water in all this because, again, there's Russia, what they did to Ukraine.
		I believe that's illegal.
		How come he hasn't done anything about that?
		And again, the China incidents here, hey, why not take on to Taiwan like everybody else is saying on this?
		Again, there's a lot of president murky water on this.
		Also, too, a previous color that colleagues says it's kind of a distraction here because I myself still want to see the SNP files.
		I mean, there's so much things that are happening here and setting kind of a bad president on this particular action that, I mean, it's just horrendous.
		Really, If it's a drug problem, okay, first of all, why is the United States has over 85% of the demand on drugs compared to all other countries?
		Of all the drugs we make, it comes into the United States.
		Why not take care of the problem here?
		Get rid of those dealers here.
		Again, get some rehash for the addicted ones and work on it here.
		Because you can make the best chairs in the world.
		If nobody buys them, guess what?
		You're going to go broke right away.
		So if we didn't have that demand here, you know what?
		These people wouldn't be making any kind of money.
		So there's a lot, again, murky water here.
		And I used to be a Republican.
		I'm independent now because I don't like how you can't, how can I say you can't break a law to correct another law?
		You know, there's procedures for this.
		That's all I want to say.
		Thank you for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		George referenced the actual elected president of Venezuela that Maduro chose not to acknowledge.
		President Trump was asked about working with the Venezuelan opposition yesterday during his press conference, and in particular, working with the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Corina Mikado.
		Let's listen.
unidentified		Is the U.S. aware of the location of opposition leader Machado?
unidentified		And have you been in contact with her?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, we haven't.
unidentified		How many hundred feelings about Machado on Monday?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader.
		She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country.
		She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect to the country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Is it possible back to your calls on this topic?
		Nathan is in Mississippi on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Nathan.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Yeah, you know, I've been watching this man for years.
		Trump is a criminal from day one.
		And plus, look, okay, board up these boats in the seat there.
		What, three, four boats?
		Okay, where was this Coast Guard?
		They ain't got no evidence showing that they found coke.
		Only thing they got is he said they had drugs on the boat.
		So if they had drugs on those boats, they had been wrapped in plastic or aluminum fall or whatever.
		You know what I'm saying?
		You don't see none of that in the water.
		Plastic don't go to the bottom.
		It will float on the water.
		So where are all the plastic and drugs is coming from?
		And another thing, this man claims he's so tough on drugs when he pardoned this man, brought 500 tons of drugs in this country.
		I don't believe nothing like that.
		And all these republics is just behind Trump, they just as crooked as he is.
		This man is not nothing but a dictator.
		I don't care what nobody says.
		He's a dictator.
		And plus, he can the White House up.
		They will not say nothing to him.
		Whatever he does, he does do more.
		And I ain't never seen the president do the things that they do.
		And they know it's not right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Mike in Billings, Montana, who's a former military.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was just curious that, you know, we as a nation are so concerned about all these laws that people are breaking and not breaking.
		I think we're forgetting that what made us such a great and blessed and powerful country was that we were built on four words.
		In God we trust.
		I'm wondering what happened to God's laws and why we as Americans think we can make up different things and not follow his basic 10 laws.
		Like, if I was to rank our presidents, I would have to say most fail because of three simple things.
		One, thou shalt not lie.
		Our presidents lie to us every day to divert attention from them.
		Two, thou shalt not steal.
		So far that I've seen, all of our presidents are thieves.
		They steal and lie.
		And the third one that's really concerning is other than Obama, thou shalt not commit adultery.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Mike, how do you think this applies to the current situation with Venezuela?
unidentified		So why should we, those that are believers, take any of these man laws?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How do you think this applies to the situation in Venezuela?
unidentified		We want to fix America.
unidentified		We need to start with honor.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Jean in Lumberton, Texas on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Gene.
unidentified		Yes, I just want to say this.
unidentified		I sit here and I hello.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can hear you.
unidentified		Okay, I sit here and I listen to all this.
		And, you know, you didn't hear these Democrats say anything when Joe Biden, you know, who I call nursing home Joe, when he wasn't running the country and they were doing all the things they were doing.
		You know, Democrats have a quick way of reading the Constitution when they want to.
		This country is more divided than it's been since the American Civil War.
		This will divide it even more simply because the Democrats see that they can use it.
		The only solution to the problem of this country and all these things that come up, why don't we quit talking?
		Let's do what they did 160 years ago.
		Let's pick up our guns.
		Let's start the shooting.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's start the killing.
		Let's hear from Kevin in Atlanta, Georgia on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Kevin.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		And I like seeing everyone calling in and having, you know, such passion.
		I do have a question about how U.S. will run Venezuela after capturing President Maduro.
		My independent question is, what do we see U.S. oil prices or gas prices doing?
		Like, what is the speculation there?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an answer to that, but we will have a guest coming up shortly who's going to be talking about what's next for the United States in terms of what it means to run Venezuela.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And also, President Trump was pressed on Saturday for details about exactly what the U.S. role in Venezuela was going to be and who exactly was going to be running the country.
unidentified		But thank you.
unidentified		Are you saying that Secretary Hegseth and Rubio are going to be running Venezuela?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And will you be sending in U.S. military troops to provide that's working with the people of Venezuela to make sure that we have Venezuela right?
		Because for us to just leave, who's going to take over?
		I mean, there is nobody to take over.
		You have a vice president who's been appointed by Maduro.
		And right now she's the vice president, and she's, I guess, the president.
		She was sworn as president just a little while ago.
		She had a long conversation with Marco, and she said, we'll do whatever you need.
		I think she was quite gracious, but she really doesn't have a choice.
		We're going to have this done right.
		We're not going to just do this with Maduro, then leave like everybody else, leave and say, you know, let it go to hell.
		If we just left, it has zero chance of ever coming back.
		We'll run it properly.
		We'll run it professionally.
		We'll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take out money, use that money in Venezuela.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls.
		Larry is in Los Angeles, California on our line for independence and is also former military.
		Good morning, Larry.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, and I'd like to say Happy New Year to everybody.
		Kimberly, I'm of the volition that we've kind of opened up Pandora's box, so to speak.
		You know, we're kind of spread thin as a military force as far as our naval fleet and the capacity to engage in, say, a number of conflicts at the same time.
		Right now, we're in the Middle East.
		We have a fleet there in the South American waters.
		And we have, you know, China and Russia.
		They're posed in their neck of the woods, so to speak.
		And I just don't know if something were to jump off in Taiwan, how we would respond.
		And I think right now, the biggest factor is who has the nukes, who has the most power.
		And I think that's going to play a big role in how a lot of things shake out.
		And I thank you for your programming and all the intelligent calls that are coming in.
		And just have a blessed day.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Violet is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Violet.
		Violet, go ahead.
		Yes.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		I am very upset over this.
		I don't see how Trump can go into Venezuela and run that country when here, as Americans, we have no health care.
		We have bad things going on.
		We have higher prices because of his tariffs.
		He does not know how to run a country.
		And his administration, all the people in his administration are unqualified.
		They give no accountability back.
		Things are just done without the Congress, without the Republican Congress saying anything about anything.
		It's a terrible, terrible situation.
		The whole administration is corrupt in what they do.
		We don't know what they're doing because there is no accountability.
		Our money is probably streaming out of whatever money we had.
		It's a horrible situation, and Americans are going to end up paying, paying for all this confusion and unaccountability and the lies that are being said.
		The lies are terrible.
		They just say anything they want to say.
		They don't obey laws.
		And that's what I have to say.
		I'm sorry about that.
		And thank you for taking my call.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Don is in Salinas, California on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Don.
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
		Me, I am sick and tired of hearing that just because Trump did something, it's automatically illegal, and it's automatically against the Constitution, and democracy's in danger.
		Here's what I'm seeing out there.
		I'm seeing people dancing in the streets in Venezuela.
		I'm seeing happy people.
		I'm seeing Trump leaving the political infrastructure loosely in place so that down the road, very soon, they can have elections, fair elections, finally.
		And this woman who got the peace prize, she can run for president again.
		And if they want her, they will fairly elect her.
		We're not installing any puppets.
		We're not putting our own regime in place.
		We're there holding their hands while we got rid of a monster.
		And we not only got rid of a monster, but we kicked Cuba in the teeth.
		We kicked China in the teeth.
		We kicked Iran in the teeth.
		We got back property that was stolen from American companies, private property that was stolen years ago.
		And none of our great presidents in the past did diddly about it.
		Trump is actually doing things.
		And I think it was gutsy of him.
		And I know it's illegal.
		Otherwise, why would there even be an indictment?
		Why is there an indictment if you can't serve this indictment?
		They served an indictment on a drug lord criminal.
		He just happened to be the president of Venezuela.
		And all these Democrats and the media standing up and defending a monster against our president is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.
		Don't you fools see that you're burning yourselves up?
		You're setting your own selves on fire.
		This Maduro is a monster, and you're going to defend him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Next up is Troy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on our line for Republicans, also former military.
		Good morning, Troy.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		I was going to say it was a perfect mission.
		And for the people I've been listening to saying that, well, Vietnam, we're back in Vietnam.
		We have great relations with them.
		Also, we're in Guam.
		Venezuela is an OPEC nation.
		Socialists came in there, stole property, and sent the country into poverty.
		And now they've been selling drugs, cocaine, going to Puerto Rico or Cusau or any little nation that's close to it.
		That's why you see those boats getting blown up because there's cocaine on them coming to the United States.
		People don't know geography.
		They don't know the history of that country.
		It used to be very affluent.
		So once it gets back on its feet again, it should be able to take care of itself.
		And the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay anything because, like I said, it's an OPEC country.
		Its currency may go back to one of their pesos will probably be worth three U.S. dollars.
		So I don't think anything is going to be that America has to look back on.
		It's not Afghanistan.
		It's not Iraq.
		And we are still in Iraq if people don't know already.
		I've heard people call in that we're out of, no, we're not out of Iraq.
		We have bases there.
		We're U.S. military people there.
		And we are also trying to fight a war in Europe to save the people of Ukraine.
		So it's going to be okay.
		It was a perfect, we had some people get injured, but we didn't have any casualties.
		So it looks like it's going to be okay.
		And it looks like Afghanistan is going to be all right in the aftermath.
		It's going to turn out okay.
		Because there's plenty of people here that I know of Venezuelan descent that had to run from the country because of the socialists that will go back.
		And they are capitalists and they are going to be affluent again.
		Thank you.
		Good morning, Cease Man, and have a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tyrone is in Columbus, Ohio on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tyrone.
unidentified		Yes, how are you doing today?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good, thank you.
unidentified		Okay, this is Tyrone Hergens from Columbus.
		And first of all, Donald Trump got 32 centuries, okay?
		That's a first of all.
		Another point.
		He ain't my president.
		God is my president.
		Some get-go because this man is wrong.
		And you talk about he went over there and kidnapped them people over there.
		It's a shame.
		Of course, he probably had salaries and everything on him.
		What about he's a bully?
		What about China?
		Okay?
		What about Putin him?
		Them the ones that are bringing out the drugs over there.
		Can I ask Trump to go over there and kidnap Putin?
		Can I ask him to do that?
		If he got balls to do that, he went over there, he bullied a little boy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hear from Rachel in Florida on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rachel.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, I have an observation.
		I was just thinking that there's more forms of election denial than one.
		We have Trump that protested, Biden getting in.
		But then we have the Democrats who show their election denial by trying to defy everything Trump does and even going against ISIS, which is an illegal organization.
		And they're just causing chaos and complete chaos.
		And so this is a form of election denial.
		My blood boiled when Biden let everybody across the border when I didn't vote on it or anybody else in the United States voted on it.
		He let all these people in here.
		My blood boiled.
		You know, we didn't do like the Democrats, you know, demonstrating, having no King's Day, all this crap.
		So I'm just saying, there's different forms of election denial.
		And the Democrats are showing theirs.
		It's pure election denial.
		That's it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Randy is in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on our line for independence, also former military.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Randy.
unidentified		Well, I only want to make a few observations.
		The gentleman from Mississippi, I totally agree, and the gentleman from Montana.
		My comment says this is straight out of the Russian KGB book, playbook.
		People need to take time to sit down and read it.
		Once take power, once you're in power, stay in power.
		Once you stay in power, pick a country.
		I told my brother this a year ago.
		Look where we at, a year later.
		Pick on a weak country.
		And he did.
		Venezuela.
		Go to Korea.
		Get Russia.
		Bunch of the fentanyl coming in our country.
		It's coming from China.
		And they know it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Sophia is in New York on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Sophia.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		It's very interesting what Mr. Trump and Senator Rubio did about Venezuela.
		We complain about too many immigrants from other countries coming.
		You know, they are happy, some of them.
		Rubio is happy being from Colombia, I believe he was.
		They're going to pay, we're going to pay the price because it's going to be more immigrants coming.
		I remember when Mr. Trump said only the white coming from South Africa, you see, now it's going to be more colored people.
		So I feel so bad until today.
		I voted for him in 2016.
		I thought he was a street smart.
		What he's doing, we're going to pay back, but God help us.
		By the way, I had to say this, Kimberly.
		The Commerce has been very respectful with you because you respect yourself, you are intelligent, and you are pretty.
		Okay?
		Happy New Year.
		And also, please, please, poor Alex, I hope his promotion has been good for him.
		I miss talking to him when I call to see Spin.
		Okay?
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thomas is in Baltimore, Maryland on our line for Democrats and is also former military.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Thomas.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was in the United States Submarine Service in the 1960s, and we kept the Russians away from our shores.
		They had 1,500 mile range on their missiles at that time.
		We kept them 1,500 miles away.
		We drained the storms and the cold in North Atlanta to protect our country.
		I don't think inventing Venezuela is protecting our country.
		And furthermore, to that, if we stop all the drugs coming to our country, there'll be a point sometime where these people come out of their sedation, the drug people, and they're going to wake up and say, like, it's just really a good country to live in, and maybe we should make some changes.
		So maybe I think that the Trump people that fighting the drugs and all, there'll be like a hidden thing coming out of this, which is when people do come out of their sedation, then they start to question the government we have in our country.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Homer is in Florence, Massachusetts on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Florian.
		Homer.
unidentified		Yes, I'm wondering why liberals and Democrats defend violent gang members like Kilmar Garce and call them Maryland dads or Madura, an actual dictator as a world leader.
		Why do Dems defend failing institutions like socialism or the Department of Education or the Department of Health or the inspector generals that have all been fired that have allowed so much waste, fraud, and abuse for so many years?
		Or illegal aliens who've raped, murdered, and molested Americans in Democrat-run states and they don't comply with ICE.
		I just don't understand why they always want to defend these people when they don't really do anything for America.
		They want to say that these drug boats didn't have drugs on them.
		Or everybody wants to quote these polls that have like maybe a few thousand people out of 350 million Americans and how many other illegal immigrants that are here.
		And they have a poll of 2,000 people and they want us to believe that that's the way the country is going and we need to believe this.
		And oh my God, we should all be so worried when it could be worded anyway or put to a different part of the country and it'll get a different reaction every single time.
		And you quote from the Washington Post or any of all these liberal and Democrat news stations and newspapers all the time and yet never quote from any of the Republican 11s unless they have something bad to say about President Trump.
		So anyway, things are going well.
		Thank God we got rid of that guy and thanked all the people that dictator out of there.
		He's an actual dictator and we got him out.
		And now you guys are mad.
		That's why.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		John is in Mount Laurel, New Jersey on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Hello.
		How you doing?
		I kind of just want to respond to some of the previous calls that I've been kind of hearing over the past 12 or so callers.
		I don't know.
		I mean, just sort of the amalgam of people and the way that they kind of process this information just kind of, you know, it throws me for a loop.
		But one guy, we have one guy talking about how he doesn't believe in stats.
		Another guy calling out for violence, crying about Joe Biden.
		We're talking about Joe Biden, like, to stop.
		Then we got another guy talking about people dancing Caracas.
		Honestly, they're not dancing Caracas right now.
		They're scared to come out of the house because the previous administration is still in power.
		Beyond that, the videos that you're seeing are actually in the United States, and they're in Spain.
		They're not in Caracas dancing.
		So what are you talking about?
		Then also, there's another lady who's talking about lection denial.
		Republicans literally say Obama wasn't born in America for eight years.
		That's all they did.
		They didn't have a lecture denial.
		They denied that the guy was even a citizen in the United States for eight years.
		So, what are you talking about?
		All right, thank you.
		And now, I have another thing to say just about Venezuela.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's hear from Rick in Columbus, Ohio, on our line for independence, also from our military.
		Good morning, Rick.
unidentified		Good morning.
		First, I'd like to say that I'm astounded at how many people do not have critical thinking skills.
		Venezuela, let's just talk about that.
		Yes, they nationalized the oil industry after years of exploitation from Americans.
		And what is Trump doing?
		He's putting back, and he said it, he's going to put oil companies back in charge.
		Well, that's interesting that he fires all these head diplomats, brings them back from around the world so he can make this move.
		This government under Trump is, he is a crook.
		He is only about seeing how much money he can steal for him and his supporters.
		If he is so anti-drug, then why did he let a convicted drug department the guy from Honduras?
		I mean, I wonder how much money he gave the Trump administration to get that out.
		But that being said, Trump is really going to put this country behind the eight ball where we are going to be exposed to many dangers that people don't even see yet.
		And China is just waiting for their opportunity.
		And when it comes, they're going to hand us a mail that we can't stomach.
		And that'll be at the beginning of the end for our country as a world leader.
		To be a world leader, you have to be better than everybody else.
		That means when you make a decision, if the decision is better for you than it is other people, that's the wrong decision as a leader.
		Everything he does and this administration is doing is only for their benefit.
		They have effectively, through propaganda, made osprey half our country saying Democrats are this, Democrats are that.
		Well, no, Democrats are fellow Americans.
		Republicans are fellow Americans.
		We have a difference of opinion, but through compromise and through reasoning, we can come to a solution.
		But he's not for that.
		He's trying to destroy all types of social and economic dreams that bind us and keep us together and keep us as a productive country so that it becomes basically ruled by oligarchs.
		And he's proven that by who he's allowed in his administration.
		Look at Leon Musk and who does Trump admire?
		Other dictators.
		So for him to come out now and say this guy's ambitious, you know, yes, he's a criminal and yes, we should be dealt with.
		And we should, why don't we deal with Latin America in a more realistic way, like bringing loans to the people that work the lands instead of feeding governments that are corrupt.
		You know, there's all kinds of things we can do to help our hemisphere, but invading countries, destabilizing it, and stealing their natural resources is not the way we do to do it.
		We've done it in the past, and look how well that turned out.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Ralph in New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ralph.
unidentified		Yes.
		Hello, Kimmy.
		How are you today?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Yes, my name is Ralph.
		I do a tremendous amount of research on this stuff.
		And based on what some of the callers have been saying, I'd like to say one thing specifically.
		Donald Trump went into Venezuela when Congress and the Senate was on recess.
		That is the exact same thing he did in Northern Syria.
		He waited till Congress and the Senate went on to recess before he went into and pulled out of northern Syria in the dead of night.
		Okay?
		The UN had told Erdogan that he could not have that northern Syria property.
		He, Erdogan, and Putin got together and they coordinated the fact that they could pull out of northern Syria when Congress and Senate went on recess on October 19, 2019.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And Ralph, do you have thoughts on Venezuela?
unidentified		With this Venezuela thing, because he did not want anyone to question what he was doing.
		He did not want to get authorization from Congress or the Senate before he made this move.
		This is what Donald Trump does.
		This is what he does.
		And everything he does is for the benefit of billionaires and millionaires.
		It is not for the benefit of the United States people.
		The money that we spend going into these other countries, we could be using for healthcare subsidies.
		We could be using for possible daycare for average Americans.
		This is what we could be using that money for.
		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		There's a comment from Steve Wallazer on Facebook.
		Venezuela will be prosperous again.
		At one time, it was the envy of the world.
		Then socialism took hold in 1999, thanks to Donald J. Trump and our military.
		Wanda is in California on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Wanda.
unidentified		Yeah, guess what, world?
		The nation of Iran has fallen.
		The government is gone.
		The king is back.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Where are you getting about Iran?
unidentified		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's go to Gary in San Antonio, Texas on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Gary.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I am so glad.
		And I really appreciate your monitoring of this program.
		I really admire you.
		I want to say, thank God for such a godly president that we have now.
		The one who needs classes.
		He needs classes in holding the Bible and even try to sell them.
		One caller said people are dancing in the streets in Venezuela.
		Oh, yes.
		Many times I people see people dancing in the streets.
		But what happens after that?
		What happens after that?
		Just remember, how many of them are still dancing?
		We have monsters here that we can't get rid of.
		So we go to other countries and get rid of their monsters.
		People are going to retaliate.
		How many countries right now, especially the poor ones, who have to keep muted, they cannot say their mind because the little support they get from the United States will be taken away.
		Haven't you seen that?
		They can't speak their mind.
		Well, I would say, I go overseas and I see people talk bad about this president and they ate the United States people, even me.
		My advice is that the president, the wonderful president, go into every dysfunctional home and take out these people that are causing trouble and we'll have the best country under the sun.
		My parents are Cuban and we're closely related to the Venezuelans and the Venezuelan people are dancing, but many are hungry.
		You only see the ones that are dancing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Gary, since you mentioned that your family is from Cuba, there's been quite a bit of analysis that this action in Venezuela, particularly with the United States potentially having some control over the government, will have a major economic impact on Cuba.
		And also the president even said that Cuba might be sort of on the radar for further action.
		What are your thoughts on that?
unidentified		Well, ma'am, I'm going to say, respectfully, I would tell the president, because I can't know what he does when he wake up in the morning.
		Take the Bible and read it holding up the right way.
		If he holds the Bible in the correct direction, he will understand something.
		Don't read it upside down, okay?
		And don't sell anymore.
		Keep them in his house.
		Read all of them, and he will be happy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, next up is Alvin in Denver on our line for independence and also former military.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Alvin.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		I was in Panama when the invasion took place.
		Now, the day I arrived in Panama, I think was the day that a Panamanian official testified in Congress that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking.
		That triggered about a year and a half worth of tensions between the Panamanian government and our government.
		And there was low-level harassment, military members, civilians being harassed by the Panamanian defense forces.
		However, and he was indicted, but what triggered our invasion of Panama was a Navy lieutenant was shot during some kind of confrontation at a checkpoint.
		A couple days later, I watched as the activity on the airfield grew and grew, and ultimately we invaded.
		The invasion was messy.
		We had military members that lost their lives.
		We had Panamanian civilians and Panamanian defense forces who lost their lives, who were injured.
		A lot of stuff was destroyed.
		A lot of things were broken.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Alvin, what lessons do you think we can take from your experience there to what's happening now?
unidentified		Well, what your guest said earlier, I think this was the model.
		As soon as I heard about it, I started reflecting on my time there.
		And the Panamanian people wanted Noriega out.
		He was very unpopular.
		So after we invaded, after we got Noriega out, there was a transition.
		I think the transition was assisted by the fact that the Panamanian culture and American culture was very much linked.
		Democratic values were kind of already in place, even though Panama had been led by a dictator, Turijos, who was benevolent.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that, given the way that you saw that play out, that this extraction of Maduro to arrest him was a good idea or a bad idea?
unidentified		Well, the extraction was perfect.
		I think our military did that perfectly.
		The motives in doing this are a lot more murky.
		The invasion in Panama, the motives, I think, were clear.
		Bush, I think, Bush Sr., I think, was willing to wait things out with the drug indictment.
		But the moment that Navy lieutenant was shot, I think that crossed the line as far as Bush was concerned.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, I want to get in one more caller before we have to finish up this segment.
		This is Bianvindo, excuse me, in Miami, Florida, on our line for Republicans.
		And apologies if I mispronounced your name, but good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I'd like to inform you how a government is taken over by, you know, on the left or, you know, to a dictatorship.
		Starting with Cuba and all the other countries that have gone to the left, usually the way they operate is that they retire everybody in the judicial system and they put their own judges in there like they did in Venezuela.
		And recently, they've done it in Mexico where they lost 30% of investors because you don't have constitutional guarantees with a judicial system that is controlled by the party.
		So in Venezuela, if you overthrow the government of Venezuela right now, as they did, they can't leave.
		It is a big mistake because nothing's going to change.
		There are five to six different persons that are ready to take over and the form of government will not change.
		From the one who was assigned, the vice president really was not elected, Delsi Rodriguez.
		So she and her brother, which in the end, they were interested in taking over just as well.
		And there's such complicity within the government of Venezuela that you wouldn't have been able to change anything unless you took over and reformed the judicial system to put people that really respected the Constitution and be able to respect property.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, we're about out of time.
		I want to read one more quick comment from Laura on Facebook.
		I'm thrilled for the Venezuelan people who are now free from the enslavement of socialism.
		God bless all your new endeavors in freedom.
		Compliments of the USA.
		Consider yourselves hugged by America too.
		Up next, we're going to have a conversation about what's next for the United States and Venezuela with Ryan Berg, Director of the Americas Program and Head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at CSIS.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		July 4th, 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
		And tonight, on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A, we're joined by former U.S. Treasurer and the chair of the America 250 Commission, Rosie Rios.
		She'll talk about several of the events that will occur over the next year, including the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary parade back in June and other initiatives that the public can participate in leading up to the anniversary.
rosie rios ▲ ● ▼		The movement and the moments.
		And let me just say, there's a couple of moments that are unprecedented, that have never happened before in this country, that are being planned as we speak.
		That is so unreal.
		If I showed you the screenshot of what we're planning, your first reaction, as it was for our commission, was, you've got to be kidding, it's happening.
		And it is happening.
		So stay tuned.
		Much more to come.
		But again, what I'm most excited about is continuing our programming long after 2026.
unidentified		America 250 Commission Chair Rosie Rios tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to talk about the geopolitical impact of what's been happening between the United States and Venezuela.
		We're joined now by Ryan Berg, who is the Americas Program Director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's get a little bit of a background here about Nicolas Maduro, how he came to power in Venezuela, and how he ruled the country.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		So Maduro was Chavez's handpicked successor.
		Prior to that, he performed a number of roles, I think most prominently foreign minister of Venezuela.
		And Maduro is Cuban-trained.
		It's something that I think is important to point out because the Cuban regime has held on for so long.
		It understands power, it understands repression, it understands brute force.
		And I think Maduro learned all of those things by being Cuban-trained.
		And he ran the country in much the same way with, in many cases, an iron fist.
		A number of stolen elections, a number of theatrical negotiations with foreign powers, most prominently the United States.
		But ultimately, at the end of the day, it was about extending his rule in Venezuela.
		And he is a pretty wily character.
		Over the course of his career, the U.S. in particular had underestimated him numerous times.
		And Maduro had played a number of administrations.
		It seems like yesterday, in the wee hours of the morning, his luck ran out, and the U.S. performed this extraordinary operation to abduct him from what the president says was essentially a fortress where he was staying and bring him to justice to face the indictment in the Southern District Court of New York.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That indictment refers to him as the de facto president.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate and does that language matter?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		The language matters a lot because there's a lot of conversation right now about the legality of this action.
		It matters because we don't recognize him as the de jure president, the legal president of Venezuela, and not just going back to the July 2024 elections, which were very clearly stolen, but going back actually to the first Trump administration where there were fraudulent elections and a question about what to do regarding the Venezuelan government, whom to recognize.
		So this is a language that has been used by the first Trump administration, by the Biden administration, and now by the second Trump administration.
		And I think it provides some of the legal foundations for what were done, what was done yesterday in the operation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do we know so far about how Venezuelans are reacting to what's happened?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think there's the Venezuelan diaspora outside of Venezuela, I think, which is very happy to see Maduro flown to the United States and to eventually hopefully serve justice in this indictment in the Southern District Court of New York.
		And then there are Venezuelans who are still in the country who I think are apprehensive.
		They're asking some of the same questions that we're asking, which is what comes next?
		What do things look like, not just in the coming weeks and months, but also in the coming years?
		Is this the foundation for a democratic transition?
		Or is this the continuation of this regime, but with a different face, with a different figure?
		There's so many questions to unpack here.
		Yesterday was kind of the moment where we figured out exactly what happened.
		And today I think we're starting to ask the right questions, which is what comes next?
		And what is the plan, if there is one, for ruling Venezuela moving forward?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		President Trump was pressed on this at the press conference yesterday with many reporters trying to get details from him on what actually comes next in the country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your assessment based on what little we know so far?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Well, the press conference was full of information, I must say that.
		But it also left observers like me with more questions than it did answers.
		And perhaps that's just the nature of where we're at in the unfolding of this very complex situation.
		There were so many questions to answer yesterday that perhaps it was impossible for one press conference to answer all of it.
		But again, I have a lot of questions, and I think many others do as well, coming out of that press conference.
		The president referred to something that sounds to me like a provisional government for Venezuela.
		There will be a U.S. role for this.
		He says he will designate certain individuals.
		He pointed to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Hegseth, potentially General Kane, if security becomes an issue around certain assets that the United States feels is necessary to get the economy moving again in Venezuela, but that there will also be Venezuelans involved in this.
		And he pointed out that the vice president, again, de facto, not de jure, vice president of the regime, Del Codriguez, had been sworn in as president.
		He also said at various other points of the press conference that anyone linked to Maduro would not be allowed to run the country long term and would not be favorable for Venezuela actually recovering any kind of economic path here.
		And Del Codriguez is clearly a protégé of Nicolas Maduro.
		She was picked, hand-picked by him to be the vice president.
		So there are a lot of questions here when it seems to come to some of these inconsistencies.
		But the one thing that really surprised me, Kimberly, is that the president took ownership of this issue in a way that I think surprised many and surprised many in his base who are very clearly preoccupied or concerned about some of these long-term commitments that might be involved in sticking with a rebuilding of Venezuela.
		He said, we're not going to do this in vain, and we're going to make sure that Venezuela has the best chance of becoming a successful country again.
		That seems to me to imply a long-term commitment to Venezuela to try to rebuild of the kind that many of us doubted the president would support given where some of his base is on this.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Given what he campaigned on.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
		That's correct.
		And we often talk about the pottery barn principle, right?
		You break it, you own it.
		This coming out of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan invasion, the president seemed to take ownership of it yesterday by saying the United States will be very much involved in the rebuilding of Venezuela.
		So that shocked many and surprised me too.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned former vice president, I guess now interim president de facto of Venezuela, Del Codriguez.
		She gave a statement saying, we had already warned that an aggression was underway under false excuses and false pretenses and that the masks had fallen off, revealing only one objective, regime change in Venezuela.
		This regime change would also allow for the seizure of our energy, mineral, and natural resources.
		This is the true objective, and the world and the international community must know it.
		We demand the immediate liberation of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Celia Flores.
		The only president of Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro, we are determined to be free.
		What is being done to Venezuela is a barbarity.
		This is a very different tone than President Trump implied from the press conference yesterday where he said that Secretary of State Rubio had spoken to her and that she was planning to...
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		She's willing to do what's necessary to make Venezuela great again, I think was the quote.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What is your assessment of well, first of all, tell us a bit about Del Codriguez, what we need to know about her, and why you think she may have reacted this way compared to what the president said.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Well, as I mentioned, she is a hand-picked Maduro loyalist.
		She and her brother have played an important role in this regime for a long time.
		Her brother is a trained psychiatrist and the head of the National Assembly.
		He's also been the point person for Maduro for many years on negotiations with the United States.
		So the two of them are steeped in the politics of this regime.
		They're steeped in the politics of how to hang on to power, how power works, and how they can maneuver to stay in power.
		So it's clear to me that long term this is going to have a lot of challenges and probably won't work out in terms of a provisional government somehow with Del Codriguez.
		But I think that quote that you gave gets to a contradiction or a major challenge that she has on her hands internally, which is that she has to simultaneously satisfy a Chavista base which is extremely upset about an abduction operation that was allowed to happen without really any Venezuelan pushback.
		It seems that the United States Air Force had air supremacy.
		The United States had a complete surprise, the element of surprise, suppression of the electricity and the cyber grids.
		So she's simultaneously trying to satisfy that faction of the party while at the same time potentially filling this role that the United States sees for her.
		It's going to be a very difficult balance.
		And right now I think it's probably safe to say that if she does intend to play this role, she needs to consolidate power internally.
		It should be known that she does not have control of the armed forces.
		She didn't have necessarily a large well spring of support within the armed forces naturally.
		That was Maduro, that was Josado Cabello, another important figure in the regime.
		That was Vladimir Padrino-Lopez, the defense minister.
		So the way that this regime works is that you have various factions with different elements of control over different institutions.
		And she had elements of control over the elements of the secret police and the counterintelligence apparatus, but not necessarily the armed forces.
		So she's in a pretty difficult position.
		She's got to consolidate support domestically, and that means appearing to be outraged.
		And also, keep in mind, she may have played a role in the abduction of Nicolas Maduro.
		There may have been a deal struck here.
		And so in order to consolidate control, she can't be seen as having played a part in this operation that seemingly got Maduro in the dead of night, while at the same time trying to play this role for the United States and a provisional government.
		That seems to me a very difficult bridge to be able to span for Del Codriguez.
		So the last point I'll make is that the only way that this makes sense to me is if she is a sort of figurehead for the moment, but if eventually the long-term plan is still to try to transition away from this regime and towards the democratic government that the people of Venezuela elected in July of 2024.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What did you make of the president speaking pretty openly about part of the reasoning behind this, or at least the consequences of it, being more direct U.S. involvement in Venezuela's oil industry?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's been a lot of the focus this morning, and a lot of the commentary is simply about the U.S. being able to get possession of Venezuelan oil.
		Oil is obviously an important part of any of the strategy towards Venezuela.
		303 billion barrels of known reserves in Venezuela.
		It's the largest on earth.
		So you can't separate Venezuela from oil.
		The two are nearly synonymous.
		However, I would argue that the United States has a Treasury Department license in place for U.S. companies, especially Chevron, to operate in Venezuela.
		So we're already getting Venezuelan oil right now.
		I don't think the President would have to put American troops in harm's way if this was just about oil and not at all about geopolitics or any of the other strategy decisions that went into this operation.
		That said, I think the president focused a lot on oil in the press conference because I think he understands that for Venezuela to grow again, for Venezuela to have any chance at having economic recovery, the oil industry is going to be an incredibly important part of that operation.
		It's undeniable and it's unavoidable that Venezuela is going to have to grow in the oil sector before it grows in other sectors in order to have any kind of economic recovery.
		And I think that's why you see such a focus right now, if the goal is indeed to rebuild Venezuela on Venezuelan oil.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		President Trump also spoke yesterday about what he called the Don Row Doctrine, obviously a play on the Monroe Doctrine.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to play a little bit of that clip and then get your response.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Under the now deposed dictator Maduro, Venezuela was increasingly hosting foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives.
		And they used those weapons last night.
		They used those weapons last night, potentially in league with the cartels operating along our border.
		All of these actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries and not anymore.
		All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrines.
		And the Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by a real lot.
		They now call it the Donro Document.
		I don't know.
		It's Monroe Doctrine.
		We sort of forgot about it.
		It was very important, but we forgot about it.
		We don't forget about it anymore.
		Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The President there referred to the National Security Strategy, and I know that you've written about an element of that strategy, the Trump Corollary, as it's called, which really does kind of encapsulate what the President is talking about here as the Donro Doctrine.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain a bit more about it?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I prefer to call it the Trump Corollary.
		That's the official term that the administration has given to it, and I think it's very important.
		I wrote from the very beginning of this administration that I think it's going to be a Latin America-first administration that's going to be highly focused on Latin America, not just because there are a number of individuals, such as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who are Latin Americanists in important positions of power, but also because the Trump agenda intersects with the region in so many important ways, drugs, migration, and the geopolitics.
		So it was no surprise to me that the recently released National Security Strategy document of the United States actually led with the Western Hemisphere.
		As an analyst of the region who's been looking at this for a long time, it's the first time I've seen Latin America get more than one page treatment in national sections.
		Four this time.
		And that section didn't just lead the regional sections, but it also led with this idea of the Trump Corollary.
		And the Trump Corollary basically says that the U.S. wants to restore U.S. preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and it's incredibly focused on foreign control of vital strategic assets, things like ports, airports, roads, things that could be militarized in a potential conflict, as well as the geopolitics of the region.
		And I think it's really important to note here that the last individual that Maduro met with before he was abducted from Venezuela was the special envoy from China.
		He had a very important meeting that day, Friday in the afternoon, with the Chinese special envoy.
		It's my understanding that the Chinese were not even able to get out of the country before the operation began.
		Trump said yesterday he didn't know anything about that, but I'm certain that somebody most likely told him that before he gave the green light to the operation.
		And that's certainly a signal.
		If nothing else, it's a strong signal to the Chinese that we are not just interested in the Western Hemisphere again, but interested once again in being the top player in the hemisphere.
		And to make one more point, to kind of step back and give you a macro perspective, I think the first Trump administration and the second, sorry, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration basically set us on a path of competition with adversaries like China.
		Now what I think we're entering is what I would call a consolidation phase, where both countries, the U.S. and China, are looking to their immediate neighborhoods, in the U.S. case, the Western Hemisphere, in China's case, very aggressive actions in the South China Sea, to shore up their immediate neighborhoods and get ready for a long-term competition that could span decades.
		So I think that's why you're seeing so much focus on the Western Hemisphere.
		A lot of folks saying, wait a second, we've been absent from this neighborhood for a long time and things have gone a little bit sideways.
		We need to pay attention once again to our immediate abroad in order to have that taken care of if we're going to actually be effective long-term against China in a decades-long strategic competition.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We're going to be taking your questions for CSIS's Ryan Berg about Venezuela and the geopolitical implications of the U.S. recent actions there.
		Our phone line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		For Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And once again, we have a line for folks who are active or former military, 202-748-8003.
		Let's start with Dorothy in Baltimore on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Dorothy.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, everyone.
		I'm just, I'm going to put out one little line of advice for Americans, and then I want to give my opinion and ask him a question.
		My advice to Americans is get your water and your non-perishable foods together.
		Now, I'm going to lead into why I'm saying that.
		Now, Trump has or is alienating our allies.
		That's what he's doing.
		China is trying to combine his allies.
		What Trump is setting up for us, because of the way he's talking about taking over Greenland, Panama, Cuba, you name Canada, you name it.
		Now, I've heard or read somewhere that some of our allies don't even want to share classified information or intelligence with us because they don't trust Trump.
		This is where we're going to fall in trouble.
		Maduro probably was a horrible man and should have been gone.
		Republicans can't understand.
		We're not saying that this man was good, shouldn't be gone.
		We're saying the strategy that Trump is using is dangerous for the USA.
		I see a Goliath and David scenario coming.
		We may be attacked, but not the way they think it.
		It could be biological.
		We're getting medicine from China.
		We're getting stuff from India.
		The people that we are competing against and doing all kinds of crazy stuff now, well, they need to not have no more food or medicine or anything coming from these countries.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And Dorothy, what was it?
unidentified		I believe they're going to attack us.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And Dorothy, what was your question?
unidentified		Oh, and my question would be, what is the plan for the U.S. to be safe, being that Trump is setting us up for what I just said?
		What is his plan for us to be safe?
		From what I just said.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Great.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can give you an answer as to how I interpret the same document we were just talking about, which is the National Security Strategy document.
		As you said, Kimberly, it featured four pages on the Western Hemisphere.
		And after that section about the Trump corollary, there were multiple passages where it stated that the United States wanted to build secure supply chains that could not be interfered with by China using Western Hemisphere countries as places to build economic security.
		I think that starts first and foremost with a country like Mexico, where labor is cheaper than in the United States and can, of course, compete with a number of countries in Asia on costs, but where proximity to the United States and free trade agreements makes it such that it's a lot easier to build that level of economic security.
		The other comment I would make is that with Venezuela specifically, about 80% of the oil that Venezuela produced before a quarantine imposed by the president was actually going to China.
		So China was benefiting from Venezuelan oil until such time as the president several weeks ago implemented what he called a blockade, but I think in actuality it's more of a quarantine, right?
		And actions against sanctioned tankers of the world ghost, the global ghost fleet that were taking Venezuelan oil and moving that sanctioned oil to countries like China.
		So there are two actions right there that I think will make the United States safer and kind of tie into the caller's question.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned 80% of Venezuela's oil going to China, but a decent amount also went to Cuba.
		And there's some sort of knock-on effects for Cuba's especially economy from this.
		Can you talk about that?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		For a long time, Venezuela was a provider of discounted or free oil to Cuba.
		That was part of the trade, essentially, that existed between Venezuela and Cuba.
		The Cubans gave Venezuela intelligence heft.
		They beefed up that intelligence apparatus.
		And the president himself said multiple Cuban bodyguards were killed in the early morning raid on his compound.
		So it's clear who was protecting him and who he trusted in terms of loyalty.
		And the exchange was very basic.
		We provide you security and counterintelligence against any kinds of coups from the armed forces, and you send us free or heavily discounted barrels of oil.
		Sometimes they would use that internally in Cuba to satisfy domestic energy demands.
		Sometimes they would take some of the excess and sell it onward on the international market.
		Now it's clear that that link, that nexus, has been severed.
		And Cuba is already from several years before, living some of its worst days since the so-called special period in the 1990s.
		So Cuba as well on the brink of economic collapse.
		It came up yesterday in the press conference.
		Secretary of State Rubio stepped back up to the podium and commented on the failed economic model in Cuba.
		And then the president said, look, Cuba is sort of on the watch list at the moment.
		And so you have a lot of speculation right now about whether Cuba could be next, not necessarily in terms of the military operation, that's not what I'm saying, but in terms of some kind of transition to new leadership as a fallout from what has happened in Venezuela and the severing or the sundering of that link on the oil front.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jeff is in Port Angeles, Washington on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		So it looks to me like the Venezuelan military stood down and allowed, effectively allowed us to go in there and take him.
		So what is their role?
		I mean, these are the same people who have been supporting Maduro all these years.
		So what, they're just going to be left in place to, what, take over?
		I don't know.
		I like your opinion.
		Thank you.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Great.
		Thanks so much, Jeff.
		It's a critical question.
		It's something I've been harping on for the last 24, 48 hours, and even in many interviews before the military here, the armed forces, is really the deciding factor in whether a democratic transition happens in Venezuela.
		We've said it before the military operation, and we'll say it again after.
		Right now, it doesn't look as though they are loyal to the regime.
		They haven't stood by the side of the regime necessarily, but they also haven't stood on the side of a democratic transition.
		I think what's happened is that they've simply retreated, as the caller said, as Jeff said.
		They allowed the attack to proceed.
		There was some resistance, but not much, and the U.S. really had operational control, and this was swift, decisive, lethal, and as far as we know, no one killed on the U.S. side.
		That said, it's going to be key in the coming days to actually look at what they do.
		Do they step back forward and show loyalty to Del Codriguez, the de facto vice president who may well be the Venezuelan leader moving forward, at least under this provisional government idea, or do they remain kind of in the background, ready to take whichever side seems to be the most decisive?
		If they take the side of the democratic opposition and they say, we stand on the side of a democratic opposition, in authoritarian regimes, that's usually the decisive moment when the institutional armed forces stand on the side of an opposition movement.
		That usually means the end for an authoritarian regime.
		And so I think it's key to look at them and to watch them very closely.
		The last point I would make, and this goes directly to one of the caller's comments, is you have plenty of support within the armed forces for the opposition.
		Comment that I've made a lot recently is you don't get to 70% support in an already unfree and unfair election, which the opposition proved that it won in July of 2024, if you don't have a lot of support within the armed forces.
		So when people go into the privacy of the ballot box, voting for the opposition and expressing their will, I think that was decisive on the evening of the operation, as the caller said.
		Lots of support within the armed forces for the opposition.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kirk is in Owaso, Oklahoma on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kirk.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Coming from the Caribbean, I need to thought something about it's not only Cuba was getting oil from Venezuela, another Petro Carib, most Caribbean islands, from Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados.
		So it's not about that.
		So my question is, one of my questions is how this whole thing would affect other Caribbean.
		And moreover, how does this whole Western hemisphere, which is nothing new for us in the Caribbean, we know what happened from the defense skirmishes in Cuba, in Haiti, and all of that.
		And we want to know all of that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Those are two really interesting points about the oil relationships with the rest of the Caribbean nations and also that the United States does have a history of interventions and regime change in the Western Hemisphere.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, first on the oil point, the caller is exactly right.
		It's not just Cuba, although Cumo was a very prominent case.
		Higo Chavez, Maduro's predecessor, built a very vast program called Petro Caribe, as the caller very correctly said, to build political support within the Caribbean community.
		And that support extended to international institutions like the United Nations, kept some of the pressure on the anti-democratic maneuvers at home off in some of these multilateral organizations.
		It was a very pun intended, crude exchange of sort of political support for material goods.
		With Venezuela producing much less than it did at the apex of its production under Hugo Chavez, the 3.5 million barrels of oil per day apex has now slid down to about 850 to 900,000 barrels of oil per day at its best, Venezuela simply doesn't have as much production to spread around the Caribbean community.
		There's a major question to the caller's point about what happens with Venezuelan oil, which the president has clearly indicated he wants to pump more of.
		He wants to see as a key driver of Venezuela's economic revitalization, whether those relationships with Caribbean nations that need that oil and have surprisingly not moved along as quickly as many had hoped in terms of any kind of energy transition and are still very much reliant on fossil fuels,
		natural gas for a lot of their energy, whether they will be able to tap into some of that increased production, if increased production happens at all in Venezuela, is a key question moving forward.
		To the point about interventions, I'll just go back to the National Security Strategy document question, the Trump corollary question.
		I think the President has outlined a very muscular approach to the region because of where I think they believe we are in this long-term competition with China, and we may well see more of these kinds of decisive actions in the region in the years to come.
		We've had a debate within Washington about whether the administration is isolationist, is retrenching.
		I think those debates are quite stale.
		I think the president has outlined in a number of documents and in his actions that he will take decisive military action when he feels it's in the U.S. interest, and that he sees U.S. power as a tool to try to reshape elements of geopolitics in the U.S. favor.
		So I think the region should get ready for more potential actions just like this.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Bob is in Abington, Pennsylvania, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bob.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Good morning, Mr. Burke.
		I just wanted to ask if you can enlighten us a little more on how some of this kind of ties in with some of the recent elections.
		And I'm thinking of Argentina with Malay, recently in Chile and some other places, and how this kind of all ties in with a more democratic representation of governments in that area in South America and Central America.
		And also how this kind of ties in vis-a-vis China's Belt and Road Initiative and how this is a way to blunt it.
		So perhaps you can enlighten myself and the other callers and viewers on that, please.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		It was a terrific set of questions, Bob.
		Thanks so much.
		The caller is absolutely right, that the region is experiencing a shift to the right in terms of a lot of the elections that have happened recently, and we've now entered 2026 when there are going to be other elections in the region, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, just to name a few, where the right-wing candidates or the center-right in those countries has the upper hand on the issues that will matter in those elections.
		And so what the Trump administration has on its hands is a scenario or a region that is shifting to a more pro-Washington stance and may shift even further throughout 2026 to a more pro-Washington stance.
		That gives them the opportunity to strengthen ties to even more governments in the region.
		It gives them an opportunity to further their agenda on drugs, migration, and China in the region even further.
		I would argue, Bob, however, that the transition in Venezuela is not yet over.
		To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning, most likely, given that, as I said at the outset of this conversation, I just don't see how this can work long term with Del Codriguez being so tied to Maduro as a key partner of the United States, long term at least.
		She may make sense as a short-term solution to eventually get to a democratic transition and a more U.S.-aligned government in Venezuela, but that's over the longer term.
		And so I would argue from the Venezuelan perspective, that shift towards a more pro-Washington government has not occurred yet just because we have Nicolas Maduro in custody.
		Long term on China, just one thing here.
		As I see the administration's plans taking shape for Latin America, the one thing that I think remains slightly underdeveloped is the long-term economic strategy when it comes to competing with the Chinese in the region militarily and in other elements of geopolitics.
		The administration seems to have that answer.
		But this battle with China, this long-term strategic competition with China, is also highly economic in nature.
		And without further trade agreements or frameworks that we can use to trade more deeply with countries, to invest in critical infrastructure, to look at things like ports, airports, roads, things that could be critical in any kind of conflict type of scenario.
		The Panama Canal has been something that's been mentioned by the administration a lot.
		Without a plan for those types of strategic assets and a way to compete with China, we are not going to be effective long term in any kind of counter-BRI scenario.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get one more caller in.
		Ronald is in Romulus, Michigan, on our line for Democrats and is former military.
		Good morning, Ronald.
unidentified		I'd like to ask Mr. Verge, when you're talking about us running Venezuela, is it going to be the same way that after the Bay of Pigs that we tried to influence Cuba for the last 70 years?
		We've had an embargo and we can't get along with a country 90 miles away.
		How can we get along with a country 2,000 miles away?
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Well, Ronald is asking key questions that I think need to be answered today, and I think key administration officials will be out on the morning shows trying to give some more meat to the president's idea that we're going to help in this kind of provisional government with Venezuela.
		The only thing that I can say at the moment is that the president has outlined several designees, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to be able to help run this.
		But I think it remains to be seen, as I've said throughout the program, whether Delce Rodriguez, the de facto vice president who is now seen by the U.S. as running the country, will actually play ball.
		The president has put multiple threats on the table, like there could be a second strike if she doesn't do what's in the U.S. interest.
		But I think that that all remains to be seen, and there are more questions at this point than there are answers.
		What does the framework look like?
		Who makes the decisions?
		How are the decisions made?
		Over what do we want decisions made?
		I think this is far more than just an economic quarantine or a set of sanctions that will be enforced.
		But there are a lot of questions that remain to be answered.
		And it's very difficult to speculate without more meat from the administration on what this agreement is going to look like.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Hopefully when we have more information, we can have you back for more analysis.
		Thank you very much, Ryan Berg at the Center for International and Strategic Studies.
		Really appreciate your time.
ryan berg ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And thanks to everyone who called in today on Washington Journal sharing your thoughts.
		We're going to be back with another edition of the show starting at 7 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.
		We hope you'll join us and have a great day.
unidentified		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
		Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
		And we're just getting started.
		Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
		Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
		According to a new MAGIN research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
		28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
		Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
		Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
		No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
		Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
		We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic, and to the desk in the Oval Office.
		C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
		No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
		C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
		Advance the mission.
		Donate today at c-SPAN.org forward slash donate.
		Together, we keep democracy in view.
		The United States struck military targets in Venezuela, resulting in the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
		Next, from Mar-a-Lago, President Trump announces the action and takes questions From the press.

▲