The legal strategy with which Trump wants to convict Maduro

WashingtonThe technical language that fill the 25 pages of the indictment The indictment against Nicolás Maduro, his wife, and other members of the Venezuelan government is the legal translation of Donald Trump's political narrative about his war on drugs. On Monday at noon, just over 48 hours later after being captured by Delta Force, The deposed president and his wife, Cilia Flores, listened in a Manhattan courtroom to the opening statement of a case the United States has been building for over a decade. Through simultaneous translation headphones, the couple heard the reading of the charges against them, which are framed as follows: "For more than 25 years, Venezuela's leaders have abused their positions of public trust and corrupted previously legitimate institutions to export tons of cocaine."

The prosecution's "introduction" not only addresses drug trafficking but also portrays Venezuela as a kind of narco-state with Maduro, his family, and his associates at the helm. It explains how, for 25 years, the Chavista leadership has exploited the country's "geographically valuable" location to facilitate cocaine trafficking from Colombia to the United States. All this in exchange for bribes rooted in a "culture of corruption" that links the regime's elites to the Cartel of the Suns. Within this network of alleged collusion with drug traffickers, five other organizations are cited: the now-disbanded Colombian FARC, the Colombian ELN, the Mexican drug cartels of Sinaloa and Los Zetas, and the Tren de Aragua.

Prosecutor Jay Clayton, who signed the document, barely outlines the evidence on which he bases his description of decades of systemic corruption linked to drug trafficking. It should be noted, however, that this generic nature of the indictment is common in indictments for international drug trafficking, and that in Maduro's case, much of this evidence is likely classified. The document underscores the "knowledge" and "intent" of Maduro and his associates' actions in allegedly facilitating the shipment of some 250 tons of cocaine annually to the United States. The deposed president faces four charges: two related to weapons possession and trafficking, one for cocaine trafficking, and one for narcoterrorism. This last charge is the most serious and could carry a sentence ranging from a minimum of 20 years in prison to life imprisonment. The document explains that Maduro allegedly sold diplomatic passports to drug traffickers and that, along with his wife, he ordered the kidnappings and murders of other traffickers who owed him money. It also includes other, more vague accusations that the Venezuelan leader facilitated drug traffickers' operations within Venezuela in exchange for bribes. These traffickers, in turn, allegedly received bribes from other members of the Chavista leadership, thus enabling their perpetuation in power. Of the six defendants named in the document, the only other two also charged with narcoterrorism are Diosdado Cabello Rodón, the regime's strongman, and former Interior and Justice Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. Cabello Rodón allegedly ordered Venezuelan military personnel to protect drug shipments. Flores faces charges of weapons and cocaine trafficking. The prosecution maintains that he accepted bribes to act as an intermediary in meetings between drug traffickers and anti-drug officials and received payments related to cocaine flights.

Amidst the expositions on the activities of the cartels and guerrillas, specific accusations stemming from other criminal proceedings are also included, such as the case of Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, also known by the nickname "El Pollo" (The Chicken). The former head of Venezuelan intelligence services spent several years in hiding and later imprisoned in Madrid until he was extradited to the U.S.

The Cartel of the Suns

If we compare the current accusation with the one from 2020It also shows how the Trump administration's war on drugs narrative has evolved. The text from that time referred to Maduro as the leader of the Cartel of the Suns., accusing him of "flooding" the US with cocaine and using the drug as a "weapon against America." These accusations fall within the Justice Department's new document. After the US government justified its military campaign in Latin America by saying that Maduro led the Cartel of the Suns, the Justice Department now cools the claim and points out that it is not a real group, but rather a term used to refer to the network of corruption between members of the Venezuelan government and drug traffickers.

The shift is evident in the fact that the 2020 accusation is watered down. under a more generic idea surrounding concepts such as "culture of corruption"and similar. As stated inNew York TimesThis change in formulation implies that the Justice Ministry tacitly accepts what many Latin American experts have been pointing out for years: that it is actually a colloquial term, invented by the Venezuelan media in the 1990s, to refer to officials corrupted by drug money.

The Noriega precedent

It is noteworthy that in the current indictment, the prosecution refers to the Chavista regime as an "illegitimate government" and states that "now" Maduro is the "leader" de facto, but illegitimate.” The specification not only relates to Washington’s non-recognition of Maduro’s victory in the 2024 elections, but is also aimed at hindering potential claims of immunity. Maduro’s defense will likely try to play this card. When the deposed president pleaded not guilty yesterday "I am still the president of the country" and denounced that he had been "kidnapped"Flores did the same when pleading not guilty: "I am the First Lady of the Republic of Venezuela."

The precedents regarding immunity do not appear to favor the deposed Venezuelan leader. Maduro's capture and the entire criminal process are very similar to the case of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega was also kidnapped in the 1980s in a military intervention ordered by George H.W. Bush and brought before the U.S. justice system. As Clark Neily of the Cato Institute's group of experts explained in an article published on Saturday, Noriega went through all aspects of the process and lost on every point: the violation of international law with his capture, the illegality of the invasion of Panama, his immunity as head of state, and the fact that his immunity was extraterritorial.

The courts dismissed the immunity argument because they gave preference to the decision of the U.S. government, which never recognized Noriega as the legitimate president of Panama. The same assumption that now emerges from the accusation against Maduro with the terminology "leader" de facto, but illegitimate." Furthermore, Neily emphasizes that, as in the Noriega case, the alleged conduct is not presented as an exercise of state sovereignty, but as a private criminal enterprise facilitated by public office. This framing of the case, which is distilled in the labeling of Venezuela as a "narco-state," raises the question of war against a foreign country and of having violated international law. After all, the operation is portrayed as an intervention against a drug trafficking network. Allegations of violations of international law were simply excluded from the proceedings. The court refused to treat alleged violations of international law as individual defenses in domestic criminal proceedings. The fact that an act—even if carried out by force and from foreign territory—does not nullify criminal jurisdiction.