"During a Saturday midday press conference, Trump announced that after the capture of Nicolas Maduro, the United States would be running Venezuela until what he described as a safe, proper and judicious transition. We're going to run the country, Trump said. That was not a rhetorical flourish. It was a claim of extraordinary power, one that requires a clear legal explanation."
"Rubio responded with everything except an answer. He talked about leverage. He talked about sanctions. He talked about drug trafficking, Iran, Hezbollah, and America's national interest. He talked about oil storage capacity and corrupt elites. When pressed again, he talked some more. At no point did he cite a statute, an authorization, or a constitutional theory that would allow the United States to run another country."
"He repeatedly cited court orders that gave the U.S. legal standing but never came close to elaborating on what those were. On ABC's This Week, Rubio was repeatedly asked by George Stephanopoulos to point to the legal authority behind taking over Venezuela. The Secretary of State pointed to court orders authorizing the seizure of sanctioned vessels, orders that allow the seizure of specific ships. They do not authorize the United States to govern a sovereign nation."
President Trump declared that the United States would run Venezuela after the capture of Nicolas Maduro, promising a safe, proper, and judicious transition. Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeatedly declined to cite any statute, authorization, or constitutional theory that would permit the United States to govern another sovereign nation. Rubio discussed leverage, sanctions, drug trafficking, Iran, Hezbollah, oil storage, and corrupt elites, and cited court orders related to seizing sanctioned vessels, but those orders authorize seizure of specific ships, not governance of a country. The claim of authority raises unresolved constitutional and legal questions.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]