Advice to Democrats Regarding Maduro Arrest: Resist Reflexive Opposition

During high-profile crises or controversies in business, politics, and life, the rule I have preached over the years of experience is to get the full truth out into the public immediately: “Tell it early, tell it all, and tell it yourself.”

Is Trump making a mistake regarding Nicolas Maduro and the future of Venezuela?

For starters, that means President Trump should have started his Sunday speech explaining the Venezuelan intervention and Nicolas Maduro’s arrest by acknowledging the confusion he caused by pardoning former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Hernandez was convicted of virtually the same crimes as charged in Maduro’s indictment – including drug trafficking cocaine. He received a 45-year sentence, issued in June 2024, after a U.S. federal jury found him guilty unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt of these crimes. In fact, the Hernandez and Maduro indictments are remarkably similar.

Since we know that Trump seems incapable of ever admitting he made a mistake, he should at least follow the Crisis Management Rule of Deep Holes: When you are in one, stop digging – don’t make things worse. Yet Trump broke this rule when he declared after his Monday speech, “We are going to run Venezuela.”

If there is one sentence that can create common ground between liberal Democrats and Trump’s hard-core MAGA supporters, it is likely to be that sentence. It evokes painful memories of foreign cultures. I share the concern about no “what next” plan from Mr. Trump other than his promise to take over running Venezuela.

Now what about the Democrats?

Democrats need to remember what their own President did about Maduro

If Trump has a problem distinguishing the Hernandez and Maduro cases, then so do Democrats trying to explain their own double standard when it comes to Maduro. For starters, one of the Biden administration’s last foreign policy acts was to increase the reward for the arrest of Maduro, whom the United States did not consider to be Venezuela’s legitimate president, to $25 million.

As White House National Security spokesman John Kirby explained, raising the bounty on Maduro was part of “a concerted message of solidarity with the Venezuelan people,” meant “to further elevate international efforts to maintain pressure on Mr. Maduro and his representatives.”

Yet, there was former Vice President Kamala Harris – not a minor official in the Biden administration – joining progressive Democrats in condemning the Trump administration for actually carrying out the mission. This morning, conservative social media is full of similar about-faces. The most embarrassing may be the before-and-after clips of Sen. Chuck Schumer. (The “before” clips show Schumer taunting first-term President Trump for allowing Maduro to stay in power. The “after” clips – taken over the weekend – have Schumer decrying the daring U.S. raid.)

The Noriega precedent

Remember, too, that support of President George H.W. Bush’s 1988 invasion of Panama to arrest President Manuel Noriega was bipartisan.

Bush 41 sent 20,000 U.S. military troops to seize Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, and brought him to Miami on drug trafficking charges, including cocaine. (Noriega was convicted by a Miami federal jury and sentenced to a 40-year prison term – later reduced to 17).

Yet most Democrats back then supported President Bush 41’s invasion of Panama and seizure and trial of President Noriega.

Even liberal icon Sen. Ted Kennedy supported the Bush invasion.

So my advice to fellow Democrats: Let’s be careful about following the instinct to immediately oppose anything Trump does. At least be ready to explain the difference between the Noriega and Maduro operations. 

Another piece of advice for Democrats: Read the Maduro indictment first before commenting on this case.

This is a serious, lengthy, 28-page indictment prepared by the same career Justice Department prosecutors Democrats have (rightly) been defending. It shows that these career prosecutors here did a lot of work and have substantial evidence to support the specific allegations. For example, here is a portion of the opening paragraph:

For over 25 years, leaders of Venezuela have abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States.2. NICOLAS MADURO MOROS, the defendant, is at the forefront of that corruption and has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States….As a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, MADURO MOROS moved loads of cocaine under the protection of Venezuelan law enforcement. As Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, MADURO MOROS provided Venezuelan diplomatic passports to drug traffickers and facilitated diplomatic cover for planes used by money launderers to repatriate drug proceeds from Mexico to Venezuela.

Why don’t the mainstream media mention the criminal indictment?

And it is a mystery to me how all the mainstream media comments from pundits and editorial writers have virtually entirely omitted even referencing the criminal case and indictment of Maduro as an alleged violator of serious U.S. criminal laws on drug trafficking and racketeering. Indeed, many editorial writers and pundits pro and con on Mr. Trump’s decision focus on the geopolitical motives of Trump vs. past precedent of arresting a foreign elected leader and foreign individuals for committing serious alleged U.S. crimes.

Yes, there may be some legal issues under international law and arcane jurisdictional problems that could allow Maduro’s lawyers to succeed in getting the indictment law, dismissed as a matter, regardless of the alleged facts. We shall see.

Bottom line

But still, to my fellow Democrats, on the Trump initiative in Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro, here is my bottom-line advice:

Just because we Democrats believe that President Trump is wrong most of the time on policies doesn’t mean we can’t support a decision when he is sometimes right.

And if you oppose entirely his decision in Venezuela, be prepared to explain why Joe Biden seemingly favored ousting Maduro (albeit without mentioning his willingness to send in military troops to seize him and his wife), and why Ted Kennedy supported a similar action by the United States in Panama in 1988. Yes, to repeat: Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The safest course for Democrats is to “wait and see” how the U.S. criminal justice system operates in Maduro’s criminal case and whether Trump digs himself out of the “we will govern Venezuela” hole and admits he made a mistake. For the first time ever.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.