B (4:41)

Yeah, well, there's, there is so much here, right? There's so much to, to try to digest. Look, first, I guess that, Let me start with this. We don't control the Venezuelan oil industry, right?

C (4:58)

We.

B (4:58)

I don't, I, I, I get that it's a theoretical exercise, you know, that, that people are saying, oh, look at the reserves. And now we, now we have this. We. No, we don't, we don't have, we don't have this. We've captured Nicholas Maduro and his wife. But that regime, it wasn't just Nicholas Maduro, right? So they've already named a new president, who, in fact, Delsey Rodriguez is basically was the vice president and de facto oil minister. Her brother runs propaganda for the state. All the key players are still there, right? And so, you know, it's not as if we removed Nicolas Maduro and suddenly Edmundo Gonzalez of the opposition, who won the election legitimately, or the entire international community basically agrees with that, that Maduro stole that election from the opposition, but it's not as if Edo Gonzalez suddenly is now sitting, you know, in the presidential, you know, seat along with Maria Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the opposition just recently. That's not the case. Right? You, you, you've got the, you know, the former vice president under Maduro now sitting as the president. You've still got the Defense Minister, Vladimir Badrino, who's a hardliner. You've got Diosdado Cabello, who essentially is the chief thug in the regime under Maduro and was probably going to take over from Maduro if there had been a natural, you know, handover of power from him to would have gone to Cabello. You've got all these senior military officers and security apparatus personnel who have benefited financially over the years by working within that Maduro regime, which had always, you know, benefited from its relationships with narco traffickers. So people shouldn't imagine somehow that, you know, when the White House says we're going to run Venezuela, I'm not quite sure what that means at this stage and I don't think anybody does really, because we don't know what's going to backfill this whole thing. Have they had, as the White House had backroom discussions with Dely Rodriguez and, and others, Cabello and these, these other cats that are in charge at this point? Have they cut a deal with them? Well, we don't know. You know, are they intending, is the White House intending to just say, okay, we can probably work with these folks because look, now they're scared because look what we did to Maduro, so they're going to get in line and work with the U.S. is that what they're thinking? Are they thinking that they're going to have a transition of power to the democratic opposition like Gonzalez and, and Machado? Because have they had those discussions there, There is a, there's a lot to clean up here, as always, when you, you know, go down the road of regime change. So I think that's the first thing that I'd want to mention other than, other than that. Look, this started out as a, as a narco trafficking exercise, right? A counter narcotics operation, right? That's how this whole thing got pitched at the very beginning as we started to put some assets into the Caribbean, started targeting, you know, drug boats and, and saying, okay, this is, this is a counter narcotics operation. That was fairly clear. If you're saying, what are we doing there? Then we had this massive build up, right? We put the Gerald Ford out there, the Iwo Jima, we put A lot of, a lot of resources out there that didn't seem to add up to a counternarcotics operation. It was outsized in terms of the deployment. So that then became, okay, what is it exactly? What's our objective? And then President Trump himself came out on social media not that long ago and said, hey, we're not easing up on pressure until you give us back the oil and land that you stole. So then that, that kind of cleared it up, you know, and they said that part out loud. People have been saying behind the scenes, you know, a lot of the non interventionists, isolationists, they've been saying, oh, this is just about oil. And you know, they've been saying that. And people have been saying, well, no, it's a counter narcotics, you know, operation. Although it does seem as if we're looking to push Maduro out. But then Trump kind of said that, that part out loud, and it became clear that, well, this is a play to create some, some element within the Venezuelan government that will work with the US to the benefit of the US.

A (9:30)

When you mentioned that Trump said the land and the oil that Venezuela stole from who? Us? How does that make any sense? What am I not putting together? I don't. Did we have a stake in Venezuela before Chavez or something?

C (9:46)

Yes.

B (9:47)

Yeah, we did. Look, for the most part, companies like Chevron had been big players in the Venezuelan oil industry prior to Chavez. Chavez nationalized the economy essentially and, you know, took not just from the U.S. but from, you know, sort of the, the key families of Venezuela kind of nationalized all of their property and assets. And so I assume that's what the White House has been talking about. They want to go back to a situation where the resources and they are vast, the Venezuelan oil resources, mineral resources, you know, so much. Take a look at how much gold sits in Venezuela. It's ridiculous compared to the world's gold holdings. And so, you know, that I get that you want. It's. There's so much here, right? People are kind of divided within the, I guess, what do you want to call it, the MAGA camp? There's those that think, yeah, this, this sounds great. And then there's those that say, I can't believe we're doing this. I thought it was America first. Well, you could parse this, I suppose, and say, well, it's kind of America first. Because what the White House, I think is saying is we want friendly neighbors, right? We want to go back to this idea that, you know, the Monroe Doctrine and then expanded by Teddy Roosevelt, you know that, that foreign countries, particularly those not with our best interests at heart, can't play in our neighborhood. And so I get that. My biggest concern here is that having been around a long time and having seen these things fairly close up, you know, again, regime change can get really, really messy.

A (11:35)

You know, everyone is referencing how ecstatic the Venezuelans are, but I have to admit I also remember when the Iraqis were ecstatic in pulling down the statue of Saddam, right? And same thing with Libya and Gaddafi, same thing happened with Noriega. And the people are overjoyed right up until we're in a 20 year conflict and they hate us. It's costing 20 trillions and we're losing lives. Now I obviously wanna give Trump credit. We didn't lose one life in the capture of this guy. That's incredible. And I wanna ask you about that. Cuz if anybody will understand how they did it, it will be you. But if the people you mentioned that are still in power don't play ball, then do you have an occupation? Does this, is this the same thing? A 20 year occupation that goes nowhere?

B (12:36)

No, I don't think you have an occupation, but I think you have just a reshuffling of people who have, you know, enriched themselves through narco trafficking. You've got a bunch of corrupt individuals who have benefited from dealing with Maduro. So at the end of the day, if, if what you're saying is we wanted to create a democratic, you know, stable country, then you know, just, just reshuffling the, the power players there doesn't really give you that. And it also kind of, then you think oh well, okay, what was that all about? Because if they don't play ball, then as you pointed out and, and work with us in terms of the oil and the other resources, then, then what have you got? Right? And how are you just pushing aside the opposition and saying well, getting Gonzalez back in there and, and, and doing the will of the people based on that last election they, you know, conservative estimates had the opposition winning by some 3 to 1 margin. But if you just push the opposition aside right now and say, eh, we'll try to get you in there later, you know, because right now it just seems too difficult. You know what that also I think there's a credibility issue here then in terms of what the point was. So I, you know, I again, all these things, things can be true, conflicting ideas can be true. Maduro was a, is a terrible cat. He and Chavez ruined that country for millions and millions and millions of Venezuelans. That's why you see people out in the streets in Venezuela elated at the capture of Maduro. You know, a country with the resources. Venezuela, it was, it was, you know, the wealthiest nation in the region. Right. And Maduro and then previously Chavez, through their policies and their corruption, their socialism, their mismanagement, they, they ruined that country. Right. I've said it before, but only communists and, and socialists and just generally corrupt people could take a country with the resources of Venezuela and screw it up. So you can argue definitely that the Venezuelan people would be far better off going forward with a new government. And they actually wanted a new government. That's why they had that election that Maduro then stole. But you can also at the same time argue and agree that, you know, this, this isn't as cut and dry, this isn't, we, we removed Maduro, now we're going to run Venezuela. What, you know, so you can see, you can see I'm, I'm conflicted as well. I'm happy to see Maduro gone, but I'm concerned about what happens next.

A (15:28)

Well, obviously. And you know, the one thing I will say about Trump is that he definitely appears to be playing 4D chess. You know, for months now, everybody's been saying, I don't know, the narco terrorism piece. This doesn't make sense. Seems like it's oil. Meanwhile, this guy has clearly been planning this for months, as he stated. I wanna look at that piece real quick. How does that happen, Mike? I mean, oh, we had 150 plane or air vehicle helicopters, armada and CIA intelligence and delta Force.

C (16:06)

Come on.

A (16:08)

I mean, how intricate was this? Are you surprised? Because I, I'm under the impression that Russia provided security for this guy, that Cuban intelligence provided support and cover for this guy. I mean, this has got to be an operation of a magnitude we what maybe saw with only Bin Laden.

B (16:33)

Yeah, look, there's no doubt that this was a well done operation. I, I would, let me just go back to that. The comment you made about the 4D chess being played by President Trump in the White House, I would agree with that. I would say that's correct. If, if what's been going on have been these backroom discussions with people like Cabello or Padrino or Rodriguez or others to, to, to lock down or set the table for what comes next. If that's not the case, and they don't have sort of an understanding, they don't have a deal or negotiations done that says, okay, this is where we're going with this. You know, we're going to grant you amnesty, you're going to, you know, allow Gonzalez to come in, the opposition that won the election. You're going to guarantee that the military and security apparatus will, will back that move. All of that. If that was happening, sure, great, you played 4D chess. If not, you know, you're kind of winging it. So, but as far as the operation goes, look, yeah, great, amazing, right? The, the intel that was provided. Anytime you have something like this, where you've got a high value target in a, in a difficult operational environment, you better hope you've got, you know, a recruited asset or assets with access who can provide you with insight into that target's activities, their movements, their daily patterns of activity, behavior, mindset, associates that they're dealing with, what their security element looks like. You've gotta, you've gotta get, and that's, that's, that's what you want. You want somebody or persons inside the inner circle, right, who are in the tent who can tell you with some certainty, right, and they're credible sources of information that then gives you, when you're doing the risk versus gain calculation as to whether you're going to pull the trigger on this thing, that gives you the, the comfort and the ability to say, yeah, we believe we've, we've covered this down, right? Because it's not like the movies of the beach books. You're not just, you're not a cowboy out there winging it, hoping it works. You're talking about people's lives, right? And so you want to have this as locked down as possible. And so that's where the intel comes into play. So for several months, and Trump was fairly clear about this back in August, he said he's authorized the CIA to conduct covert activities in Venezuela. Nobody really knew what that meant. It may well have meant that, you know, we had personnel in there conducting surveillance signals, intercepts, gathering intel, drone operations, whatever, pulling together this picture of Maduro and how this military operation could be conducted. And then you bring in Delta, which, you know, again, talk about quality and, and the best of the best. These guys, amazing. Supported by what's known as the 1 60th, the Night Stalkers. I had the, the privilege of, of looking at some of their stuff up close and, and it's amazing, right? It really is incredible. But it's all, it's all based on how good is that intelligence? How good is your homework before you rock up on that site, right? So it was similar to, as you pointed out, Abbottabad and, and, and, and bin Laden and So again, you know, full marks to them for, for, for making this happen. That again, I get it. Isolationists, non interventionists, they'll roll their eyes and go, oh, my God, you warmonger. I can't believe you, you, you, you. You've done this. I'm just saying what the operation from an operational perspective was, Was spot on. Right. I'm also, you know, I'm also saying, because we don't know, we're speculating to do what degree they've set the table for what happens next. You know, if it wasn't set, you know, you don't want to discount.

A (21:00)

See you, you. You talk about, if he's playing 4D chess, he would have had what happens next in Venezuela ironed out. But then you think about the fact that if he had tried to do that, he would have given away the operation. I'm imagining so he probably couldn't have. On one hand, he said that Rodriguez was cooperating. And then she turns around and goes, there's one leader of Venezuela and it's Maduro. Return him. And I'm thinking, like, blink twice if you're signaling to Russia and China. Like, are you cooperating with us and playing a double game? Because you don't know how it's gonna play out. So you want Iran and Russia and China to think that you're on their side. But it is kind of scary with regard to the fact that there is no plan and he gives us these vagaries that upset the shit out of everybody. Of like, we're gonna run Venezuela. And it goes back to that conversation you and I had had previously of the way he communicates these things does not do him any favors. I want to look at the international piece here. Cause you sent me some homework and I did it. So I wanna go country by country. Cuba, Mike, Honestly, Cuba. I thought, like, who gives a shit about Cuba? I don't mean to be a jerk, but in other words, like, there's not gold, right? There's not rare earth, there's not oil. What do we. This has been going, you know, we don't care about Cuba for those reasons, but that's not true. And we. So Cuba was providing a security apparatus for Venezuela. Like, can you explain the role that Cuba plays and what's gonna happen next for Cuba? Cause it seems like Rubio has gotta be in his bonnet about it. Understandably so, being Cuban himself. But what's the Cuba thing here?

B (22:47)

Yeah, the Cuban thing is fascinating. Look, nothing happens in a bubble, right? Because it's the world Always seems to be shrinking. So everything's interconnected. I will say just to something you had mentioned before, that though they could have been having conversations with people like Rodriguez, you know, and some others without tipping off the operational aspects of a possible move on, on Maduro. Right. They, because they've been doing that for some time. They laid out a 50 million dollar bounty for information leading to Maduro's arrest. Right. So it was clear that the US wanted him. They've had an indictment out there in 2020 as a matter of fact. So I mean, this, this is not, that would not have been new. You would have had to be delicate conversations for sure, but those things could have been taking place. And then also, again, if you've, you know, hopefully, you know, you've got recruited assets inside that organization somewhere, you're getting some corroborating information or you're getting some insight into who to approach, who might be, you know, interested in a conversation, looking for a possible way out. So those things could have been taking place. Setting that aside, Cuba. Look, Cuba exists, you know, to the degree that it does and still functions in large part because of Venezuelan support and in large part because of Venezuelan energy that they've been receiving at enormously discounted prices in exchange sometimes for Cuban support, you know, providing doctors, intel support, security support. So Cuba's very concerned right now about what may happen. Right. And why do we care about Cuba? Well, you know, kind of the old Cold War reasons. You know, we were concerned about Cuba in the old days because they were playing with Russia and we did not want Russia in our backyard. That basically still exists today. China's been, you know, messing around inside Cuba for a while, you know, communications stations, surveillance opportunities. So that's, that's kind of why it's not because, you know, we're, you never, you want to be pragmatic about why the US does anything and why any nation does anything anyway, right? Every nation should be acting in its own best interest. That's just the way the world works. Again, people will get all up in arms, you know, some folks on the progressive side, and say, no, we should be a community of nations. You know, they're not living in the real world. Right. So I think, you know, the reality with Cuba is they're very concerned about what's going to happen next because their, their regime, their economy depends very heavily on it. And so that's why, that's why they're focused on it. Cuba had, by all accounts provided security support, kind of an inner circle for Maduro and because, you know, he had been getting paranoid, possibly not trusting his own people. And so, you know, again, you. You have to look and go, okay, well, that's. That's interesting. So what happened? And as you pointed out, the Russians, you know, had reportedly provided some security personnel, apparently from the Wagner group, you know, whether they were on site.

A (26:14)

Who's the Vagner group? I'm so sorry, I've been meaning. I wanted to ask you that.

B (26:19)

Who is the contractor? Yeah, it's like a private contractor. Think about, like the old days. It's you. It's gone through name changes, but, you know, most people remember Blackwater as a. As a private military contractor. So Wagner group was kind of the same way. You know, a guy named Yevgeny Prigozhin who's now dead. Putin had him killed because Prigozhin marched on Moscow some time ago, upset about, you know, the Russian military leadership of the Ukraine invasion. And, and, you know, afterwards it looked like Putin had.

C (26:56)

Had.

B (26:57)

Had come to terms with Prigozhin, but that was just a bait and switch. And then eventually his plane blew up. So, you know, it's not uncommon. But anyway, I don't want to. I don't want to ramble. I'm afraid I am, but. Yeah, you're not at all.

A (27:13)

I specifically asked you.

B (27:15)

But it's all. It's all. It's all tied together. Russia and China and, And their interests in Venezuela, you know, based on resources, based on the fact that, you know, in China in particular, would like to have that. That foothold in, in our backyard. So, yeah, there's. There's more here than just remove Maduro.

A (27:42)

It sure seems like it. And it seems like oil is the least of it with regard to us grabbing the money, like a money grab. It seems like it's much more about applying some sort of pressure on Russia, China, Iran. So China. Now, I saw this out there, and I wanted to ask you about it. China apparently lent like, $60 billion to Venezuela that they're supposed to get back in the form of crude. They get two thirds, supposedly, of their oil from Venezuela. Well, now, do we have a little bit more bargaining power? Because does that money get paid back? What happens if we're running Venezuela? How's China gonna get two thirds of their oil? Do they have to loosen restrictions on silver, loosen restrictions on rare earth? Do we get more bargaining power here? Same thing with, like, what's Putin gonna say, oh, return Maduro. Oh, okay, well, get outta Ukraine. I mean, like, do we now have a little bit of leverage, you know. Cause we put all these sanctions on these guys and they're like giving us the bird, saying we'll just go get oil from the other bad actors like Venezuela. Na, na, na, na, na. And the sanctions weren't working, so. And last but not least, you've got Iran supposedly building terror cells over in Venezuela and manufacturing suicide drones, whatever the hell that is in Venezuela. So how does this impact those three players? China, Russia, Iran, and the Ayatollah has got to be shitting himself.

B (29:16)

Yeah, yeah. If, again, it all depends on what happens. Right. It all depends on how this shakes out in, I suspect, and probably in relatively short order, we'll know whether it's going to be smooth ish. Or a mess. If we've got something in place or an agreement in place quietly that happened, where there is a move from this existing government in Venezuela that says, okay, we are shifting now, we are going to work with the U.S. right. We are not aligning ourselves in any way with China, Russia, Iran, kick out Hezbollah elements that are there in Venezuela, do all these things, then, yeah, this has a, a seismic impact in a sense. Right. China isn't, isn't, you know, overly dependent on Venezuela. And as you pointed out, Venezuelan oil is, you know, kind of heavy crude, so it's its own issue, but it would have a sizable impact on those, those countries from their geopolitical strategy, their perspective. Right. And it would definitely be a, a win for the, for US Interests, economic interests. There's no arguing that. I mean, again, you could argue the morals of it all and whether it's constitutional, et cetera, et cetera, but that's a, that, that would be a win just strictly from the economic and national security perspective. The bigger question is, hey, hey, is this a win for the Venezuelan people? Well, it's not if you're just reshuffling the people in the Maduro regime who are there and they don't want to play ball with the US and they continue their, you know, bromance with Xi Jinping and, and Putin and others. And so it really is. It's an unsatisfactory answer right now, but the answer that, you know, I've got is that is. But we need to see how that shakes out. Yeah, it depends on how it all falls apart.

A (31:28)

Okay. So basically, there are two paths here. One is the ideal situation, that he's already been making inroads with regard to either the people that remain in power, like Rodriguez and so on and so forth, and he takes some form of control over Venezuela, not great for the Venezuelan people, good for Americans. And, or maybe he's opening the door for the people, which you had mentioned to me. That was option two. Option one, Maduro, we make a deal, he leaves peacefully. Didn't happen. Option two, the US Applies enough pressure, there's an internal overthrow and an installation of a new regime. Maybe we've opened the door, facilitated the ability for the people of Venezuela to do that. Now option three, you get like a Machado in charge. But we don't see a path to that right now. At least we have no insight into that. That's best for America and the people of Venezuela. So really, we're kind of waiting to see how the, the chips fall is basically what you're saying. There's no way to know. It could be a catastrophe, could be amazing.

B (32:41)

You, you, you, you almost, I mean, look, how many times can you think of regime change where it was smooth and suddenly you get what you want, which is a, a free and stable and democratic society that, you know, that then betters the lives of all those people who have been living under a repressive regime. You know, that's great to think about, but I guess if, if the.

C (33:09)

If.

B (33:10)

The existing power structure that's now there in Venezuela looks at what happened with Maduro and thinks, well, we don't want that for us, so let's get on board here with, with the Trump train and, you know, kind of go that route. Great, as long as. Then what? Well, then they've got to, they've got to have a transition period, right? They've got to step down because they're all, they all benefited from the Maduro regime. Right? So at some point the Venezuelan people are going to say, look, we elected this fellow Edmundo Gonzalez, you know, we want a democratic society again. Which is the reason why you see so many Venezuelans out in the street, right, celebrating Maduro's capture. So there's gonna have to be this, this transition. If this is all about the betterment of life for the Venezuelan people, if all you're interested in, if all this is about is gaining access to Venezuelan resources and creating a government there in Venezuela that's not going to, to be at odds with U. S. National security interests, that's something a lot, that's something different, Right. That doesn't imply that it's for the betterment of the Venezuelan people. So, yeah, I, again, yes, there's, there's a lot of players. I heard a lot of conversations. Yeah. Last couple of days where people, people just seem to think it's black and white. Yay. We got rid of material. Yay. Now we got our hands on the oil. Yay. It's going to be great. Now the people are going to have a free and stable and democratic society. You think? Have you not been paying attention to how the world works? But anyway, I know, I'm, I know I'm really cheering up the day, aren't I?

A (35:03)

No. You know what, though? But Mike, it's so obvious that that's the case. It's so obvious that there are a million ways this could go. Even Trump himself said, look, historically this hasn't gone well. This could be, this could be a disaster. But I have to hope that he has some sort of a plan. So two last things. What does this tell Iran? If I was the ayatollah, I would be thinking I'm next. Do you think they, like, you know, they buck up and they fly? Right now it's like, okay, you know, whether it's a disaster in Venezuela or not, Maduro's effed. So does this give us leverage? Is this like, talk about carrying a big stick. Do they play ball?

B (35:51)

Yeah. No, I don't think so. That's a short answer. Look, Iran, Iran right now is facing some of the most serious protests, street protests that they've seen possibly ever since the mullahs came into power. And so they're, they're dealing with some real internal issues and conflict right now. And they're getting increasingly repressive and they're getting hard line, you know, aggressive on the, on the protesters out in the streets. Over the past handful of days, those protests have grown to a number of locations around the country. They're, you know, the people are basically just fed up. Their inflation is through the roof. Their, their savings are gone. Prices of food and fuel are through through the roof. They, the economy's crumbling right through mismanagement, corruption, sanctions. The, the fact that the Iranian regime has been spending billions on weapons instead of, you know, the benefit of the people. So the Iranian regime is, is facing all sorts of problems, but I don't think they're looking at Venezuela and thinking, oh, we could be next. It's apples and oranges in terms of, you know, US approach and, and what they may be willing to do in the White House related to Iran as opposed to Venezuela. So I think that the hope with Iran has always been that at some point people are going to say, you know what? We actually want a better life. It's not happening under the mullahs in this Incredibly repressive Revolutionary Guard Corps. Maybe it's time we actually make a change. And I think this feels different. We've seen a number of protests rise up and then fizzle out underneath the kind of the crushing, you know, effort by the repressive regime. But this one feels a little. This one feels different. It's reaching a broader group of people. It's not just a student protest. It's not just truck drivers protesting something. It's. It's people saying, we can't afford to live. We turn our tap on, there's no water. They've got this massive water crisis through mismanagement and corruption. And so this does feel different. But I don't think that anybody in the White House is thinking, maybe we go pick up Khamenei, you know, and bring him to New York to face trial. I don't think that's. I don't think that's okay.

A (38:16)

I thought maybe. Okay. Okay. Good to know. All right.

B (38:19)

Yeah.

A (38:20)

Last question. Clearly, this guy was a problem. This has been going on for years now. Even Biden Harris had put a $25 million bounty on the guy's head. You know, now there's a clip going viral of Chuck Schumer belittling Trump, saying, you still haven't gotten Maduro.

D (38:40)

He brags about all these things he wants to do or is doing, but his actions belie his words. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy was working, Juan Guaido wouldn't be in the balcony here, he'd be in Venezuela. He'd be sitting in the president's palace or at least waging a fight to win. He's here and the president brags about his Venezuela policy. Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the president began.

A (39:28)

Well, you know, I think it was in 2020. And now, of course, he's like, I can't believe you did that. But nevertheless, the point is, the guy was a problem. And I thought there was a consensus amongst Democrats and Republicans that we had to do something. If Trump did nothing, what would have happened? Would it arguably have been the worst case scenario. In other words, I'm trying to give this guy some credit to the point that something had to be done. Or do you think we should have left it? Because now we're gonna have the exact same problem, but we're gonna spend American dollars. And we're gonna lose American lives trying to calm Venezuela down and get it under control like we have historically. Hey, ladies, it's Jillian here. And let's just say that when it comes to intimate wear, the struggle is real. For many of us, bras and underwear are just afterthoughts, basic, uncomfortable, and, honestly, underwhelming. And for years, I'd focus on my outfits, thinking the right top or the right pants would make me feel great. But Skims has flipped that script. Now the foundation pieces I put on first and set the tone for my wardrobe. Confidence and comfort all day long. The fits, everybody scoop Bralette is just what it says. It fits every body type, and it's a game changer. It's supportive, it's comfortable. And even if you have a bigger bust, which I unfortunately do not, but even if you do, it feels like a perfect fit, not a constricting sports bra. Skims is just designed differently. Quality fabrics, quality construction, soft and seamless support. You feel secure, lifted, and still totally natural. No digging, no adjusting. Skims is now just a wardrobe essential for me, and I'm sure it will be for you too. So you can shop my favorite bras and underwear@skims.com Jillian. And after you place your order, please be sure to let them know that we sent you select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show in the dropdown menu that follows.

B (41:25)

Yeah, it's a. It's a really interesting question. Look, you could. You could say, okay, aside from the isolationists out there, if Obama had done this or Biden had done this, people would have said yes, and. And then they would have said, because, of course, Maria Machado, she won the Nobel Peace Prize, and she's on the opposition. So look at this. Look at what you've done. So you've always got the Trump factor, right? And you always have to. You always have to look at sort of the negative comments that come from the Democrats and from the. Particularly the hard left. And you have to take part of that and say, okay, well, this. This part of it. Their criticism, in part, is. Is because of the Trump factor, right? They're going to criticize whatever he does. Right?

C (42:07)

Look, Biden.

B (42:08)

Biden posted social media back in the day that, you know, that, you know, Trump likes thugs and criminals. Like Maduro. He actually, he said like Maduro, he says, but I, meaning Biden, I stand with. With the Venezuelan people and democracy, right? So. But of course, he didn't do anything about it. He didn't, you know, so it's always kind of this self righteous posturing with no action behind it. So on the other, so you can say, look, this again, lots of different things, conflicting things can be true at the same time. So you can argue that removing Maduro actually is a good thing. And in part you can say it's a good thing because you can see so many Venezuelans celebrating it, right? Think about the millions of Venezuelans who fled that country under the repressive regime of Maduro and previously Chavez. Right? And then all the folks who live there who are living in an enormously resource rich country and it's a basket case because of the government they've had to live under.

C (43:11)

So.

B (43:12)

Okay, but then again, you know, then you've got this other issue which is what are we doing now? Right? And it's not just as simple as standing up and saying we're going to run Venezuela. Well, yeah, what if they don't want us to? Then what? And so that's why I say this depends on what's been happening behind the scenes, off the radar. And I would also like to think that they've been having those conversations because the Venezuelan people deserve a much better opportunity in life. Right? And yes, we should be worried about having countries like Russia and China and Iran gaining leverage and a foothold and opportunities in our own backyard, in the US's backyard, right? That's any country would worry about those sort of things, right? So we just have to, we have to wait and see, unfortunately how this is going to play out. The Democrat or, sorry, the Venezuelan people spoke, they wanted a different government, they got a different government with their vote, but then it was stolen from them. So hopefully they get at some point soon what they voted for. Last point is there is nothing been funnier to me over the past couple of days than the Russian Foreign Ministry and other Russians complaining about U.S. actions and saying that we've invaded the sovereignty of another nation. I just find it hilarious because there you couldn't find an organization with less self awareness than the Russian Foreign Ministry.

A (44:52)

I was thinking that, like how does that call go with Trump and Putin? Like when he rings up Putin, it says, just FYI, you're going to read in the news we captured Maduro. And it's like, what does Putin then turn around and say you can't do that? Like that's got to be the most absurd conversation. That's where I kind of wondered, is it like.

B (45:16)

That'S what they do, right? They just, that's. And so they just come right out and they say, look, you know, we're. You know, you can't do this. It's aggression towards another nation. I mean, okay, sit this one out. The only other thing to point out that people should be watching. People should be paying attention to China's interpretation of this move with Venezuela. Meaning how do they. How do they take what we're doing and move it over to the Taiwan Strait and their. Their actions towards Taiwan? Do they look at what we're doing and saying, well, we're enhancing the Monroe Doctrine. We're saying, you can't play in our backyard. And they go, fine, well, we won't, but you can't play in our backyard. Right. So that's a bigger question is how, you know, we talked about Iran and how Iran interprets the move. It's. I think it's a bigger issue how China interprets it going forward. For what that's worth.

A (46:17)

It's worth. I mean, it's worth everything. Obviously, I. I always listen to your show, and when you break down the intricacies of these things, you appreciate the nuance and the need for patience and critical thinking. But when you have the Republicans saying, like, it's the best, the majority outside of the kind of America first, people who don't really appreciate that this is America first, whether you like it or not, but, you know, the vast majority of Republicans are like, he hung the moon. Look what he did. And I kind of want to lean into that. Right? There's a part of me that's like, wow. I mean, holy cow. Like, I want these bad guys out of my backyard. And we didn't lose anybody. And look what we showed the world. We're such badasses. We got the best guys. I love that. There's a part of me that wants to lean into that. And then when the Democrats kind of unilaterally blast this and I see their hypocrisy, it makes me want to lean into it more. And then I listen to you, and I'm like, no, come on, be smart, Jill. Think about this critically. Like, where could this go? What could go wrong? Are we giving a green light to China to take Taiwan, for example? Are we setting a precedent that international law doesn't matter? Are we gonna get into this thing where we have to put boots on the ground in Venezuela for 20 years because the people that are in charge right now, like, all of these things matter? And this is why your voice was truly the only one I wanted to listen to. And I cannot thank you enough for giving me your time. Tell People where they can get much deeper, dives on each and every one of things that we talk about on a regular basis on your show.

B (47:55)

Well, thank you very much for that, first of all. But yeah, you know what? I, I, I really enjoy working with the team from the President's Daily Brief. I mean, terrific people. And they make, they make this process really, really simple. So every day, morning and afternoon, the morning version is about 20 minutes, the afternoon version is about 10 minutes. And all we're doing is bringing you the top three or four events of the day, the stories on the international stage, national security concerns, crises happening around the world. All we're trying to do is tell you what's happening. We're not trying to tell you how to think about it. Right. And that's, there's enough of that, I suppose. And so all we want to do is say, keep these things on your radar. Here's what's happening. And then, you know, go with the idea that people are smart enough to, to come up with ideas on how to think about it themselves. Right. They don't, they don't need to hear that. So the degree that we can, we keep it without opinion. Occasionally, like I may make a snarky comment, I can't help myself, but for the most part it's just telling you, telling you that. And so that's the President's Daily Brief. It's podcast platforms everywhere. We've got a YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief. If people like what they see, hopefully they subscribe.

C (49:15)

Look at me.

B (49:15)

I'm like, I'm a little marketing machine. How nice is that?

A (49:19)

You have to be boss this, you have to be. But the reality is you're just a treasure.

B (49:25)

Yeah, but you know what? I'm, I'm that you remember that toy, the wind up monkey with the symbols and it would smack the symbols together. So like I'm that toy. And then we've got this great group of people behind that, that, that do the heavy lifting. And so that's, that's the President's Daily Brief.

A (49:45)

Yeah, I don't think that's accurate, but I appreciate the humility. Thank you so much for your time. You've given us a ton to think about and a healthy way to think about it. And I, of course, will be tuning in like I do every single day. I look forward to seeing you.

B (50:00)

Thank you for that. Thank you very much. I sure appreciate it. It's always, it's always a pleasure. Anytime there's a, a problem in the world, let's get on the, on the line and talk.

A (50:10)

Mike, don't say that because I will do that to you. So I will. You opened the door, so thank you, babe. Have a great one.

B (50:18)

Talk to you soon.

A (50:19)

All right, guys, up next, we've got Josh Hammer to help us look at the American legal basis for this as well as the international legal basis and what happens next. All right, Josh, you have the excruciating job of helping me disseminate the legalities of what has just happened. And I, I want to understand this with regard to American legal basis and international legal basis. So let's start here at home, from the top. Can you explain, and this is something that has always honestly confused me, the difference between Article 1 and Article 2, the powers of the Legislative branch and the powers of the Executive branch. Like if you're Commander in Chief, but you need to go to Congress to declare war. I don't understand. How does this break down?

C (51:12)

Sure. So there's all sorts of ways that Article 1, the Congress and Article 2, the executive branch interact, but I think that the war powers is definitely one of the historically more complicated ways that the two political branches tend to interact with, with one another. Gillian, for what's worth, I am of the opinion that there is a long standing, massive, glaring misunderstanding when it comes to what the declare war clause of Article 1, Section 8 actually means. I'm something actually of a minority opinion on this, so you might very well have a different guest who has a different point of view. But I have long been persuaded by an argument that was argued in a law review article probably 25 years ago by John Yu, who's been a professor at Cal Berkeley for years, former DOJ official who I think the pretty overwhelming originalist 1790s era evidence argued that what it means for Congress to declare war is actually something of a formality. It actually literally is a post hoc measure for Congress to declare that we are actually in a state of war. And what that means, that it triggers certain diplomatic actions in it triggers certain sanctions, it triggers certain economic proceedings. But it's something actually of a formality. It's usually after the fact. And according to that understanding, this big tension between Article 1 and Article 2 tends to collapse because the Commander in Chief clause of Article 2 would then allow for the President to engage in preemptive prophylactic strikes to protect and preserve the American national interest. Now, here's where Congress does have a role. I mean, lest I sound like a monarch, which I'm not. So here's where Congress actually has a Major role to play. Gillian, Congress has the all important power of the purse. That's Congress's most important legislative power, is the control over the Treasury. And if Congress wants to pass a law to defund any military action abroad, they have the ability to do that. In fact, if you go back and look to the 1970s and the decline of the Vietnam War, that's actually how the Vietnam War, or at least America's involvement in the war, came to an end with was Congress actually passed laws to defund the Nixon and Ford administrations in Vietnam. That's basically how it ended. So in my understanding there, that's how it works. Now, can Congress get involved when it comes to passing a prophylactic authorization of the use of military force? They absolutely can. And I'll go further and say in most cases, in most cases, they probably should. But for a pinprick strike like this, for something like this that's been planned for months, where a big public debate could easily jeopardize the health and safety of the US Delta Force, I'm actually really happy that they did it this way and not the other way around.

A (53:50)

Okay, I want to show you then this clip of Senator Chris Murphy saying that what Trump has done is wholly illegal.

B (53:57)

This is wildly illegal. This is a president who has been operating illegally since he was sworn into office, stealing from the American people, seizing spending power. What, illegally illegal, now dragging America into a war overseas. The president cannot run a military operation of this size, cannot invade a foreign country without coming to Congress first, without allowing the American public to weigh in.

A (54:19)

Okay, And Josh, needless to say, I have a suite of clips from Chuck Schumer and AOC and Hakeem Jeffries, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all saying the exact same same thing. So you're largely saying that that's baloney, not true.

C (54:40)

So it's baloney for, like, probably five to 10 different reasons. First of all, this is not, I think the single most important point, Julian, is this. This is not a military operation, as most people understand. Military operation, yes, the Delta Force was involved, but the Delta Force was involved here due to the nature of the fugitives of justice. If someone like Maduro had been in San Antonio, San Diego, Memphis, St. Louis, whatever, we would have just done the exact same thing with the U.S. marshals. Because the key points to recall is that Nicholas Maduro and his wife were indicted by the, by a grand jury in, well, initially in Miami, but then was superseded in the Southern District of New York. This happened in 2020 in the final year of the first Trump administration, they indicted him on narco terrorism conspiracy, on cocaine importation conspiracy and various weapons charges. In fact, it was the Biden Harris administration that had a $50 million bounty on his head. And this is actually made even more interesting when you consider the fact that there have now been three presidential administrations in a row, so Trump one, Biden, now Trump two, that have not viewed Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. Most recently, he lost an election to Edmundo Gonzalez in 2024 and refused to abdicate. So it's true when Murphy's saying that under international law, which is not really even a thing, but let's hold that aside, it's kind of only vaguely kind of sort of a thing.

A (56:01)

Okay, yeah, I want to get to that.

C (56:02)

But to the extent it's a thing, it is understood that there is typically absolute immunity for heads of state. But he's not even a legitimate head of state. That's been the bipartisan policy of now three presidential administrations in successive fashion. So this is a law enforcement operation. It is a female fugitives of justice extraction and bring them back to be arraigned, which is what happens earlier today on Monday. That's what this is. It is fundamentally a law enforcement operation. So this whole article one, Article two, war powers debate, it's fascinating because I'm a constitutional law nerd. Jillian, I love this stuff. I could do this all day long. But it's actually really kind of missing the point. This is not a military operation. Delta Force is only involved because of the nature of the international fugitive. There is legal precedent for this is very similar to what happened to Manuel Noriega, who similarly was the illegitimate leader of Panama, who similarly was indicted on international drug trafficking grounds, who similarly was extracted by the US in Panama back in 1990, 36 years to the day prior to the courageous operation in Caracas this past weekend. And back then, all the usual suspects said the same thing. They said due process, this, that there. The courts rejected all of its square because not legitimate leader been indicted and ultimately being then brought to pay to answer for your alleged crimes in a US Court of law. It's a law enforcement operation, fundamentally.

A (57:22)

So there's a precedent obviously then of how this plays out. And that would be Nora Yeager having said that real quick. A lot of people have criticized, and understandably so, the narco terrorism piece with regard to what are we really doing over there? Oh, you know, we knew the whole time it was about oil and minerals and gold and this, that the other and geopolitical you know, get these bad guys out of our backyard. I get it. But okay, now having said that, you just mentioned the Biden Harris administration had a bounty on this guy's head. And when you actually look at the wanted ad for this guy, there literally is, it says send all tips to the dea. It's like, okay, so even Biden Harris saw this guy as a narco terrorist. They wanted tips to go to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Is this strategic? And what I mean by that, Josh, is if I'm taking, if I'm playing 4D chess, which we've been throwing around a lot recently with regard to this capture, am I going, how am I legally going to nail this guy? I know I'm going to indict him on drug charges and I'm going to bring him in that way. And then legally I have a pathway, which I take, by the way. No umbrage with that. But do you think, in other words, it was strategic, making this a operation of bringing him to justice versus military regime change?

C (58:55)

So it's gutsy. It is a genuinely gutsy call by Donald Trump. Gillian, there are a million different ways that this could have gone catastrophically wrong. It did not have to end the way that it did. And it is yet another reminder that the U.S. army, Delta Force, CIA, DEA, I mean, don't mess with the U.S. i mean, that fundamentally is the number one takeaway here, is that Donald Trump threatened the, that he would do something for months and months and months and Maduro basically stuck out two middle fingers and now he's been made to pay the price. But the Venezuelans had a Russian supplied S300 air defense weaponry literally a day or two before the raid. Xi Jinping of China sent a high ranking emissary there to assure Maduro in person. I believe it was that China has your back too. And again, I mean, it could have gone really, really wrong. But now this is the second, second time in just the first year of this second Trump term between Iran back in June and now Venezuela, it's the second time that a Russia, Iran puppet of sorts has been nakedly exposed. And Donald Trump looks frankly amazing. I mean, this is a gamble that completely and entirely paid off. Now when it comes to the oil, look to me, Jillian, oil is like the third or fourth or fifth reason why this is a good thing for the United States. The number one best reason that this is a good thing for the United States and this has been the stated reason for the narco boat strikes all along, is that we've been Losing millions of above all vulnerable young men to drugs in this country in 2020. Three years ago, this country reached roughly 110,000 in drug overdose deaths. Compare that to the early 1990s, when it was between 5 and 6,000. I know this all too well. My, like my cousin with whom I was very close, overdose and died of fentanyl back in 2017. So this hit my family hard. It's hit many families, families hard. So this is the number one reason to do it. Oil is somewhere down the list. But it is true that Venezuela, outside of the US And Canada, has one of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the entire Western Hemisphere. We definitely want more oil production, cheaper prices, better for the economy, frankly, in some ways better for Republicans at the ballot box in 2026, this November as well. But I guess I think the final point, Gillian, is this, is that in addition to the saving young Americans and American men above all from drugs, this really is a Monroe Doctrine play. And Trump's been using that phrase. He clearly knows exactly what the Monroe Doctrine is. It's an early 19th century notion which was furthered by Teddy Roosevelt with the eponymous Roosevelt corollary. And it's his notion that we're going to take care of our own backyard, that we're not gonna let European powers or Asian powers, whatever, meddle in our own backyard. And I think the administration kind of telegraphed this in many ways, because Marco Rubio's very first trip as Secretary of State, if you go back and turn back the clock, last January, just about a year ago, his very first foreign trip, Gillian, was actually to three different Latin American countries. And a lot of very close observers of foreign affairs scratched their head and said, well, this is fascinating. He's not going to the Middle east, he's not going to Europe, he's not going to the Far east, he's going to Latin America. It's like an unheard of thing there for his very first symbolic trip. So I think in some ways, the administration choreographed and telegraphed that they were going to take this hardcore Western Hemisphere policy. And now they've executed in really spectacular fashion the big question, among others, is, is Cuba going to be next? It's entirely possible, frankly.

A (62:23)

Okay, now, having said that, talking about the Monroe Doctrine, this issue has been raised, and I think we're now kind of leaning into the international law piece of does this signal to the likes of China? I just had this talk with Mike Baker, like, well, if the US can go handle this in their own backyard, right, can we go say the same thing about Taiwan. So let's. So having said that and putting that out there, and I want to get to it, I want to back up, what is international law? Because no one seems to give a shit about it, who makes it and who enforces it. What is this? This is a male orifice thing. I don't know. I don't, I don't. You know, you got a mayor of New York saying he's gonna arrest Netanyahu because of international law. Like, what the f is international law?

C (63:12)

Gillian, as a lawyer, it's a very good question. Okay, so I, you know, as someone who took foreign relations law, and it was literally one of my highest grades in all of law school, it's actually a very real question. So look, if we're being a little less snarky here. So in a very limited fashion, there is such thing as quote, unquote, international law. There were very well known international law theorists. A man by the name of Hugo Grotius, a man by the name of Emer de Vattel. Vattel writes this big treatise called the Law of Nations. Anthony Scalia actually cited it in various cases when he was a justice on the US Supreme Court. But this is going back through 300 or more years ago, and back then, what was referred to as the law of nations or international law. And there are some very early American republic statutes that reference the law of nations. So it's not really getting into the details, but there's something called the alien Tort statute which refers to law of nations. So there's such thing as the law of nations. But back then, we're talking here above all about things like maritime law, law on the high seas. And we're talking here just about, about normative bonds or normative kind of, kind of axioms that different countries have to respect to one another. Because there's no enforcement mechanism, it ultimately is only as strong as the ability or willingness of the various parties, which in this case means mostly countries to actually abide by these norms that we've agreed to kind of just by action, by custom, by precedence, by. By repeating itself over and over and over again. Now, in a modern context, especially post 1945, post United nations founding, so called international raw, I guess, refers to these globalist boondoggles. I mean, the un, the who, the wto, the icc, the ICJ try trying to enforce their quote, unquote rulings. The problem, at least from an American perspective, is that these people are not sovereign. Okay? People don't understand this in the United States, we the people, are sovereign. How do I know that? Because we literally wrote it in the preamble of the Constitution. We, the people of the United States are the sovereigns in this country. And what that means is that our law, our Constitution, our statutes, and yes, the treaties that we agree to, that is the law of the land that is binding in these in the United states under Article 6 of the Constitution. In fact, kind of putting on my legal nurture half for a second. One of my all time favorite Supreme Court cases that Ted Cruz actually argued back when he was Solicitor General of Texas back in the 2000s was a little known case called Medellin vs Texas. The details neither here nor there. Medellin was a. Was a horrific murderer who Texas wanted to execute to give him capital punishments. And the United nations, all the globalists basically said no. And Cruz ends up going against not just the United nations, but also the Bush administration actually side against Texas. And long story short, he won. And he won a resounding victory for constitutionalism over globalism, for the notion that in this country, our oath of office, we are bound by our laws, our treaties, our statutes, not by what the United nations says. So, yes, there is such thing as the law of nations, but the United States only submits to it to the extent that our own statutes, like this kind of obscure statute called the Alien Tort statute mentioned, to the extent that we voluntarily bring it upon ourselves. Other than that, there's really no such thing. There's definitely no binding or enforcement mechanism. There's, there's no police force that, that Francesco Albanese in the UN are going to sound around the world to try to round up people there. So it's a very nice talking point, Gillian, but in many ways, frankly, it's an ill informed talking point of hacks and morons, which is basically why you're hearing people like Zormandani and Chris Murray talk about it.

A (66:53)

Unbelievable. Okay, so long story short, you believe that Trump has the law on his side and everybody else is full of baloney, basically. Is that my takeaway here?

C (67:09)

I think that's basically right. Now, look, Gillian, I'll be honest with you. As a political commentator, I did not have this on my bingo card. I definitely did not have any of this on my bingo card. I thought that Trump might take a more assertive role in Latin America. I definitely did not see it happening to this extent, but I think it's brilliant. I mean, it's a brilliant win for the doj. They have these fugitive justice who are now being arraigned and will be tried, prosecuted, likely convicted of their offensive offenses. It's a huge win for the American people, all those who are suffering from these drugs coming into the country. It's a huge win for global supply of oil when it comes to energy. And above all, it's just a huge win for the United States. We frankly look like a bunch of badasses. And our enemies China, Iran and Russia look terrible. I mean, they fundamentally look terrible. They've lost a crucial ally. The Western hemisphere is safer, Gillian, and so is the United States and Donald Trump. I salute him because they did a fantastic job here.

A (68:05)

Okay, last question. Does this set a bad precedent for China to justify going into Taiwan, even though you would imagine if they're going to do it, they're going to do it anyway? That does seem to be a case that pretty credible people are making. Do you have any concerns about that?

C (68:23)

Look, Xi Jinping would probably be very happy to twist and distort what we do and try to manipulate it to his own heart's content. Again, here we have someone who is not, not a legitimate head of state. Right? Maduro was not recognized by the US by Canada. I mean, even the very left wing government of Canada didn't recognize Maduro. The, the European Union, I mean, does it get more liberal than Brussels and the European Union, even the EU? The EU's official stance was that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela. So there's a lot of reasons why it's not really an apples to apples comparison to Taiwan. But I mean, having said that, Xi Jinping, Gillian, is an enemy of Western civilization. He's going to twist and distort anything there. So maybe, maybe he could use this as further grist to launch some sort of invasion. But to your point, I'm not sure that it's really going to tip the scales ultimately one way or the other.

A (69:15)

Josh, thank you so much. You provided very helpful clarity. Thank you for illuminating all of this for me and the audience. Where can everybody find you on a regular basis?

C (69:28)

Gillian? My pleasure. You can follow me on xushammer at the Article 3 Project where I'm senior counsel. You can go to Article 3 Project project.org the Josh Hammer show is available everywhere. You get your podcast on YouTube and at the Salem News Channel as well. And then my book, Jillian, is Israel and Civilization. The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.

A (69:47)

You're wonderful. Thank you so much. I hope, I hope you'll let me call on you again. It looks like I'm going to need to.

C (69:54)

I look forward to it. God bless you, Julian.

A (69:56)

Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please, like, comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.