The precedent established that it was not illegal, not this time, not the previous times. It’s just the way things are done. It may be a vague, fuzzy, and uncomfortable line, but it is not and was not illegal. There is a legitimate argument that Presidents have a lot of military authority and the question is “where is the line?” Precedent establishes that this and similar previous things are well within the line.

You can argue that it should not be legal, but not that it is illegal. For better or worse it is legal.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Trump said that opposition leader Mercado (spelling?) did not have the internal support to run the country.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 12:55 pm: Edit

The claim that this was about executing a warrant against Venezuelan Pres. Maduro over drug trafficking would carry a bit more credibility if Pres. Trump had not just pardoned former Honduran Pres. Hernandez of his drug-trafficking charges.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 05:44 pm: Edit

As Trump explained, the drug trafficking charges against Hernandez were fake, a political prosecution with made-up facts. This was not Trump's opinion, but the analysis by professional non-partisan investigators with years of experience. The case against Hernandez just didn't hold up to scrutiny.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Steve: your comment above is the first and only reference I have seen to "professional non-partisan investigators" concluding that Hernandez was falsely charged. If you wouldn't mind, would you provide me a reference to that?

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 08:26 pm: Edit

IIRC Chavez ran Chevron out of Venezuela right after he took control...

As stated, turned the fields into a Government owned entity..... Basically destroying oil production for a decade or more....

Operations were financed by Chevron for decades prior to Chavez....

So putting an oil company back in charge would provide financing and real experience...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I saw it on TV, Jessica. Not surprising that the channels you watch would not mention that detail.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 01:07 am: Edit

Concur.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 04:21 am: Edit

I looked up the Pardon om Fox News web site and have found nothing yet about "analysis by professional non-partisan investigators". The official words are that it was case of a Biden administration over prosecution, allegedly on behalf of the leftist opponent (according to the pardoned ex-prez).

I found out however that he has a brother, Antonio "Tony" Hernández, in US prison convicted of serious drug crimes.

Oh, yes I also learned the ex-prez is still wanted by Honduras for alleged fraud and money laundering, and that they asked Interpol to execute the arrest order.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 04:43 am: Edit

I saw it on Fox, a group of people were discussing this and that, and when the Honduras thing came up, one of them noted that it was "analysis by professional non-partisan investigators" (or words to that effect) which cleared him. This is one of those cases where both sides can claim the other is biased. Latin America and Asia and Africa are awash in corruption of every kind you can imagine, and they invent new ones every year. The point is that it wasn't a case of pulling it out of the air but different teams finding different answers. I would assume that no president would pardon someone without serious proof of mis-conviction, but we saw a boatload of highly dubious autopen pardons and no end of complains about Jan 6. Everybody knows the other side is wrong. Jessica and I agree on few things, but the biggest one is that one of us is wrong.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 05:49 am: Edit

Just a general comment that if one wants to get anywhere close to reality in the US media environment, one has to be willing to take information from both D and R media.

If you are in one faction, and you object that media in the other faction are liars, you are right. But so are the media in your faction!

If you think theirs are systematically worse, you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply more aware of the lies coming from their side, because the media on your side focus more on that.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 10:31 am: Edit

As it happens, Steve, I don't watch televised newscasts; I rely upon an assortment of digital print media for such - AP and Reuters (neutral); New York Times (left-leaning); Cleveland Plain Dealer (neutral); The Wall Street Journal (right-leaning); BBC (center-left), The Times (of London, right-leaning), and Deutsche Welle (center-left) for international perspectives; etc.; as well as a range of defense analytical services.

What is known is that Hernandez wrote to Pres. Trump specifically requesting a pardon, using language designed to tie their respective legal plights (and resentments) to each other. What is also known is that Pres. Trump has made something of a habit of issuing pardons and commutations to other politicians who have found themselves in legal difficulties, such as former representative George Santos, former governor Rod Blagojevich, etc., despite ample proof of their guilt and no evidence of mis-conviction. He has also established a practice of issuing such on behalf of large donors or those with business ties: Paul Walczak stands as a notable example of the former, with Changpeng “CZ” Zhao typical of the latter.

There are things where I believe that Pres. Trump is in the right; his support for a renewal of nuclear power is foremost among those. But he has exhibited a pattern with his use of the pardon power that does not align with claims of correcting miscarriages of justice.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 10:46 am: Edit

Regardless the Hernandez matter, there's a notable issue with the action in Venezuela. One of the aforementioned media sources I follow wrote it, but nearly all have said something similar to it:

Few people will feel any sympathy for Mr. Maduro. He is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years. The United Nations recently issued a report detailing more than a decade of killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention by henchmen against his political opponents. He stole Venezuela’s presidential election in 2024. He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly eight million migrants.

If there is an overriding lesson of American foreign affairs in the past century, however, it is that attempting to oust even the most deplorable regime can make matters worse. The United States spent 20 years failing to create a stable government in Afghanistan and replaced a dictatorship in Libya with a fractured state. The tragic consequences of the 2003 war in Iraq continue to beset America and the Middle East. Perhaps most relevant, the United States has sporadically destabilized Latin American countries, including Chile, Cuba, Guatemala and Nicaragua, by trying to oust a government through force.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Maduro gave the US every reason to arrest him, when he sent Venezuela Gangs (specifically
Tren de Araguain) to America (ala The Mariel boatlift by Castro emptying prisons to send them to the US)

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Totally agree that US "nation building" has a really checkered past. A good number of failures in there. And some successes too. I think the Venezuela situation will largely pivot on the specific execution.

If the existing government is largely left in place, with gentle "instructions" whispered in their ears by US officials, that to me seems like it has a better chance of working vs. the debaathification debacle early in the Iraqi regime change. And the punishment for Venezuelan officials not listening to the whispers is a one way ticket to prison.

There must be a new set of elections, and then support for the new government that emerges. The thing that makes it easier is that the Maduro regime was very unpopular, and the people have felt the stinging impoverishment for years. And there is no Sunni/Shia problem, or undermining from a large, hostile neighboring nation like Iran. And geographically this is all in the US back yard so to speak, not on the other side of the world.

So success or failure? It really remains to be seen. I see a reasonable chance of success, more so than failure. But make no mistake it's a big undertaking.

--Mike

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 03:32 pm: Edit

AP and Reuters is NOT neutral.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 03:40 pm: Edit

BBC hasn’t been within astronomical distance of the center in half a century. They are strictly anti-right and very anti-American.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 04:33 pm: Edit

AP and Reuters are about as neutral as it gets by any measure that doesn't come in a glass heavily tinted either blue or red.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Bolo: Pres. Trump's own intelligence staffers concluded that Maduro neither controlled nor directed TdA (ref: National Intelligence Council memorandum, 7 APR 2025).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 07:04 pm: Edit

AP and Reuters aren’t neutral.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Many third-party media bias organizations and critics have noted AP's leftward lean:

AllSides: In November 2024, AllSides moved the AP's rating from "Lean Left" to "Left" following editorial reviews and a blind bias survey. The panel found evidence of bias in story choice, subjective qualifiers, slant, and analysis presented as fact. The review noted that the AP often favors left-leaning perspectives and sources.

Ad Fontes Media: This organization's Media Bias Chart generally places the AP's general news reporting near the left-center, but often into the "Lean Left" territory, while maintaining high reliability and factual reporting standards.

Specific Sections and Style: The AP's politics and fact-check sections have been rated as having a "Lean Left" bias, primarily due to story selection. The AP's widely used AP Stylebook has also been accused of reflecting a left-leaning bias through its guidance on certain terms and issues, such as climate change terminology.

=============
In no way has AP ever been noted in areas on the right of center but often "left" is found in their middle name. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 08:20 pm: Edit

OK. Just for giggles and grins, what would you consider to be a neutral news agency?

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Using Chuck's media Bias sites Reuters is listed as being Neutral, as is The Hill Wall, and The Street Journal, which I read. None of which have defended the Pardon of Hernandez in their news reporting, that I have seen.

If you are watching cable "news" you are watching propaganda, regardless of which one it is.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 04, 2026 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Google rankings of biased main stream media sites:
Media bias is evaluated by several independent organizations using different methodologies, resulting in various rankings and interactive charts. Two prominent sources for these rankings are AllSides and Ad Fontes Media.
Key Media Bias Assessment Organizations
AllSides: Rates over 1,400 media outlets and writers based on crowd-sourcing, expert panels, and third-party data. They provide a "balanced newsfeed" feature that allows users to see stories from left, center, and right perspectives.
Ad Fontes Media: Uses a team of analysts from across the political spectrum to create their "Media Bias Chart". This chart uses a two-dimensional system: the horizontal axis measures political bias (left to right), and the vertical axis measures reliability and factual reporting (highest quality at the top).
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC): A website that rates both factual accuracy and political bias. It is run by founder Dave Van Zandt and provides a comprehensive, though ad-heavy, resource for evaluating a wide range of sources.
Pew Research Center: Conducts extensive surveys on American news consumption and trust levels, revealing significant partisan gaps in which sources people rely on.
Sample Bias Rankings (Based on various sources)
Below are some common mainstream media sites and their general bias ratings. Note that these can shift over time as organizations update their methodologies and sources change their coverage.

News Source General Bias	Ranking (Approximate)
The Associated Press (AP)	Center to Lean Left
BBC News Center	Left
Christian Science Monitor Center	Left
Reuters Center	Left
USA Today	Lean Left (moved from Center in July 2021)
The Wall Street Journal (News)	Center to Lean Right (Opinion pages are Right)
CNN	Lean Left to Left
The New York Times	Lean Left to Left
The Washington Post Lean Left to Left
MSNBC	Left
Fox News	Right
New York Post	Right
Breitbart	Right
OAN	(One America News) Right

Not every one will agree with the rankings.

It should be remembered that there are individuals who claim to be “Center” who others will perceive are far left.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, January 05, 2026 - 02:56 am: Edit

Imo, more important than whether or not this or that media is leaning left, or right, is factual accuracy and partisanship. (as Ad Fontes also show in their chart)