Maduro will almost certainly argue that he can't be prosecuted as a head of state [View all]

[bigtree]

...essentially, ironically, and highly probably using the Supreme Court maga majority's own carve-out, designed primarily for their president Trump, to argue the Venezulan leader has immunity from prosecution for what are essentially official acts.

It's should be noted that many of the things he's charged with allegedly occurred in the period when he was officially recognized as head-if-state by the U.S.; recognition for the Venezuelan president given during both the Trump and Obama presidencies.

That, by the way, is a significant distinction from the similar arrest and kidnapping to the U.S. of Noriega from Panama who was never regognized by Panama or the U.S. as a legitimate leader of his country. In addition, Panama's general assembly had actually voted to declate war against the U.S. BEFORE Bush sent in troops to remove him and bring him to the U.S. to face charges.

Of course, at some point the U.S. withdrew that recognition of Maduro as Venezuela's legitimate leader, but that distinction doesn't appear to matter to the prohibition in international law against this sort of rendition of country's elected leaders; no more than any of the people or institutions Trump's regime has proclaimed to be threats to the U.S..

Moreover, Trump's own intelligence agencies reported last year that they did NOT find any direct ties, for instance, between the 'drug gang' Tren de Aragua and Maduro, and promptly fired the officials who made those findings.

At any rate, it's going to be amazing to watch the Maduro defense argue for the same legal considerations as a head-of-state which so much of Trump's own assumed impunity from prosecution for his own authoritarian behavior and actions relies on.


...good discussion here:

Law professor and scholar Steve Vladeck joins Katie Phang to break it all down...