Will Don Jr. and Eric Trump take time out from killing leopards in Africa to fight in Venezuela? They might be dumb but no more than daddy, who started this mess

(Facebook)

Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela -- even though he doesn't use the "I word" -- already is showing signs of turning into an international slog, a quagmire. Experts are signaling that other nations could become involved. Who might that be? Robert Reich, who worked in the administrations of presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter -- and as labor secretary under Bill Clinton and a member of Barack Obama's economic transition board -- mentions Cuba and Colombia. Anybody else? Reich goes on to mention Russia and China.

That sounds like fun.

In short, Reich is one smart and experienced fellow. Best of all, he's a libtard. (I've come to use that word as a badge of honor). TIME magazine has named Reich one of the 10 most effective cabinet members of the [20th] century. The Wall Street Journal placed him No. 6 on its list of most influential business thinkers. When Reich suggests Trump has little clue what he is doing -- perhaps leading us into an Afghanistan-style mess -- people around the world should listen.

Reich's take on events of the past few days involves stark, ominous language. At his Substack page, under the headline "The Quagmire of Trump's Venezuela," Reich writes:

The story of what’s happening in Venezuela is unfolding quickly and big questions are mounting. The immediate danger in Venezuela (and potentially in Colombia and Cuba) is chaos.

Asked who’s in charge of Venezuela, Trump answered: “We’re in charge.”

What the hell does this bluster really mean?

Some commentators have noted that Trump -- having ordered the arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro  and First Lady Cilia Flores -- seems so pleased with himself that he is almost taking a victory lap. We have a president who enjoys being a bully. But Reich, serving as the much-needed adult in the room, notes that victory laps can be premature -- and come with downsides. He writes:

U.S. troops are not prepared to occupy Venezuela. Trying to do so would be a disaster.

Maduro’s system of oppression is still entrenched there. It includes the national guard, the army, the national police, the intelligence service, and the Colombian guerrilla group ELN. All remain intact.

Maduro’s top lieutenants also remain, including several who were involved in his alleged crimes. Not to mention his thugs and narco-traffickers who have been controlling Venezuela through violent repression and stolen elections.

"Violent repression and stolen elections"? Maybe Trump should ask them to join the Republican Party. Reich likely would not see the humor in that line. He notes that Venezuela, as a country, comes with complications -- and suggests Trump neither knows nor cares about such niceties. You mean Dear Leader might not know what he's getting into? Imagine that. Reich writes:

Venezuela has roughly 28 million people. There’s no way to determine the emerging balance of power between pro- and anti-Maduro camps, but it’s a safe bet that any power void is likely to be filled with violence.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke of “coercing” the Venezuelan government to make policy changes over its oil reserves, rather than “running” the country: American forces will prevent oil tankers from entering and leaving Venezuela until the government opens up the state-controlled oil industry to foreign investment — presumably giving priority to American companies.

But since August, America has had an arsenal of warships, jet fighters, and some 15,000 troops on Venezuela’s doorstep, which hasn’t stopped oil shipments. How big must the arsenal be to do the job? How long will it remain there? At what cost? Will we bomb Russian or Chinese tankers coming into or out of Venezuela?

Let's hope Reich will be careful about what he says. Trump might decide bombing Russian or Chinese tankers is a good idea. Meanwhile, the orange turd's allies explain his actions as being "in the national interests of the United States." Reich scoffs at such naivete:

Rubio emphasized that “the national interest of the United States … is No. 1.” But what exactly is the “national interest” of the United States here? Big Oil? Chevron has been in Venezuela for years. Do we declare victory when Exxon-Mobil is there, too? Do we insist that Venezuela not charge American oil companies any extraction fees? How profitable must Big Oil’s extractions of oil from Venezuela become before Trump is satisfied?

Rubio says Trump hasn’t ruled out troops on the ground. But does anyone remember what happened in Iraq after the U.S. invasion there? Libya? Syria? Hello? How many failed states do we need to create before we understand their danger to the stability of an entire region of the globe?

Trump has talked tough about having no fear of placing American "boots on the ground." That has prompted some online wise crackers to suggest that first sons Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Barron Trump should get ready to sign up for the U.S. Army. Some wonder if the Trump boys might, like their father, develop a sudden case of "bone spurs." Junior and Eric, however, are known for flying to far-flung paces like Zimbabwe to kill wild game, such as a leopard -- who likely was minding his own business, munching on a wildebeest. If the boys are fit enough and fearless enough to do that, some have wondered, maybe they should sign up to fight in daddy's budding war for Venezuelan oil. 

Let's assume, for now, that any war in Venezuela will be fought without the efforts of the Trump spawn. Does that mean "boots on the ground" is just a spiffy phrase for daddy to play with -- as he might with a 13-year-old girl at Jeffrey Epstein's New York apartment.

Do the downsides of Trump's venture in imperialism end there? Not by a long shot, Reich says:

"We’re now fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, both in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America. In Delcy Rodriguez’s first remarks after Trump made her interim president, she condemned Maduro’s capture. “What is being done to Venezuela is a barbarity,” she said, adding that Maduro is Venezuela’s “only president.”

Trump said later that if Rodriguez doesn’t cooperate, “she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”

Trump won’t consider anyone who “doesn’t cooperate.”

Earlier, he spoke dismissively about Maria Corina Machado, who recently left Venezuela to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. "I think it'd be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said, even though international election experts say a candidate she supported, Edmundo González, beat Maduro by a wide margin in 2024. “She's a very nice woman but she doesn't have the respect."

For Trump, “respect” means the power to bully. “America is respected again,” he gloated in his address to the nation on December 9. “Our nation is strong, and America is BACK.”

Wrong. Gunboat diplomacy is back.

After an extended absence due to technical difficulties, Legal Schnauzer blog returns to the national discourse as Trump creates more chaos in the Caribbean

 A message to our readers at the Legal Schnauzer blog

 

 

Problems with our laptop computer have forced us to the social-media sidelines since late June/early July. That's by far the longest break we've had in steady publishing since the blog began almost 18 years ago -- and it's the kind of unwelcome absence that is a new experience for us. But starting today, that experience is over, hopefully for good.

What does it mean for us to be back? We are grateful to have a meaningful track record. For example, I'm not aware of another blog having roots in Alabama, or anywhere in the Deep South, that has published continuously since summer 2007 -- until our recent interruption struck. And I don't know of any blog on justice issues that has been around for that length of time. I suspect there are other blogs in those categories that have enjoyed similar longevity, and I tip my hat to those publishers because I know that keeping a blog alive and relevant for, say, 15-20 years is a challenging task.

Longtime readers might recall that in 2013 a Chicago-based online research and marketing firm called Cision ranked Legal Schnauzer among the top 50 independent law blogs in North America. That was an especially nice honor for us because we never have been affiliated with any larger entity -- a law firm, a law school, a media company, an academic institution, a legal society. We might be a truly independent blog, but it's hardly a one-man show. My wife Carol, long known on these digital pages as "Mrs. Schnauzer," has been a supportive and perceptive sounding board from the outset. And she has played a huge role in figuring out how to get us back up and running after encountering technical difficulty. If it were left to me, I probably would still be trying to sign on to a computer I haven't been able to use for several months. But Carol tamed the sign-on and other cyber gremlins, all of which seemed to be well beyond my meager "handyman" skills. Carol long has told me, as a little girl, she would accompany her father, Mark, to various hardware stores in and around Ensley, Alabama. I will be forever grateful that the lessons picked up on those trips stuck with her. I had a handy father too -- and he even hauled me to hardware stores several times -- but the lessons that could have been learned there zipped right through my cranium without passing go.      

The good news is that today's post, thanks to Carol, marks our return to the blogging fray, and it comes at a historically precarious moment for American democracy -- with Donald Trump showing signs of being an even more unstable, lawless, and dangerous president than even his most vocal detractors (including yours truly) likely feared. With a little luck -- and the technical gods willing -- we plan to be part of of your information diet well into the future.

Here is a short version of what seems to have caused our forced break. Seemingly out of nowhere, we started getting messages that our laptop wasn't charging. After conducting online research and checking with several knowledgeable folks, we concluded that the problem likely was on one end or the other of our power cord, perhaps with the battery itself. Coming to that realization took several weeks; trying to figure out how to solve the problem took several more weeks. We aren't certain we have things fully figured out, but this post is a sign of progress. With the Republican Party in a state of decay and dysfunction, the Democratic Part is our only hope for effective leadership at the national level. That makes progressive voices, both yours and mine, more important than ever. 

We appreciate your patience and support while we were missing in action. And as always, we look forward to hearing from you, either through comments at the end of our posts or via email at rshuler3156@gmail.com or text at (205) 381-5673. 

Writing for you and sharing each other's thoughts is a true privilege. Perhaps you are like me and have come to take being called a "libtard" as a badge of honor. That is especially so now that it's clear Trump and his followers never had any intention of "making America great again"; they are about destroying, not building. Look what they've done to the White House East Wing, to the Kennedy Center, to the U.S. Justice Department, the Supreme Court, and the rule of law. American democracy largely has been built by liberal ideas and the people who implement them. Those ideals can help our nation, our world, recover from the menace of MAGA. 

As a longtime Southerner and sportswriter, I can't resist a football analogy. I was pained by the recent thrashing the University of Alabama Crimson Tide absorbed from Indiana University in the college playoffs. But I could not help but be inspired by the story of Indiana, mired in pigskin mediocrity for decades, rising to become the nation's No. 1 team.

It's a classic comeback story, and I think a similar story is in America's future, hopefully its near future.  May we all pledge to do our part to help bring that comeback to fruition, sending Trumpism to the trash bin where it belongs. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For Americans who long have wondered if the country was being led by a glorified madman who posed an unprecedented threat to our democracy -- and please count me among that group -- we no longer have to wonder. In one of the most stunning news days in modern U.S. history, President Donald Trump proved yesterday that he is -- to borrow a phrase from a Saturday Night Light skit about a mythical 2008 debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin -- "bad at his job and mentally unstable." 

Many Americans probably went to bed Friday thinking, "Trump is a nutty incompetent, but maybe his days are numbered by the Epstein scandal," only to wake up to news that Trump had:

a. Ordered air strikes on five strategic targets around Caracas, Venezuela;

b. Ordered the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, First Lady Cilia Flores;

c. Oversaw the indictment of Maduro and Flores on drug trafficking and weapons charges;

d. Brazenly stated the U.S. would "run" Venezuela, and American companies would take control of the country's vast oil reserves;

e. Suggested the invasion was more about oil than drugs, stating, "We're going to be taking a tremendous amount of wealth from the ground. We're going to get reimbursed for everything we've spent."

Did people around the world have reason to ask, "What is going on, and how could this happen?" The answer is yes, according to a report at CNN under the headline "Trump attacked Venezuela and arrested its president. Is that legal?" Aaron Blake reports that one of the most prominent members of the Trump administration admitted the president could not lawfully order a unilateral strike inside Venezuela. Blake writes:

On November 2, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that land strikes in Venezuela would require the approval of Congress. She said that if Trump “were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress.”

Days later, Trump administration officials privately told members of Congress much the same thing – that they lacked the legal justification to support attacks against any land targets in Venezuela.

Just two months later, though, the Trump administration has done what it previously indicated it couldn’t.

It launched what Trump called a “large scale strike against Venezuela” and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro, to face charges. And it launched this regime change effort without the approval of Congress.

(Trump in November claimed he didn’t need congressional authorization for land action, but it clearly wasn’t the consensus view in the administration.)  

Is this the work of a thuggish administration that now directly poses a threat to world stability? It's hard to see how it could be viewed any other way. Is there a reason for Americans to see their country as one of the world's "good guys," with the strength and moral authority to keep bad actors in check? The answer? Probably not.The world is left to ask, "If American leadership can't be trusted, how will order be maintained. Blake provides disarming insights:

It appears the mission is, for now, limited to removing Maduro. But as Trump noted, it did involve striking inside the country – the same circumstance some in the administration previously indicated required authorization that it didn’t have. CNN reported back in early November that the administration was seeking a new legal opinion from the Justice Department for such strikes.

And Trump in a news conference Saturday spoke repeatedly about not just arresting Maduro, but also running Venezuela and taking over its oil – comments that could certainly be understood to suggest this was about more than arresting Maduro.

Legally dubious strikes inside another country – even ones narrowly tailored at removing a foreign leaders – are hardly unheard of in recent American history. But even in that context, this one is remarkable.

Shifting justifications

That’s because the Trump administration has taken remarkably little care to offer a consistent set of justifications or a legal framework for the attack. And it doesn’t even appear to have notified Congress ahead of time, which is generally the bare minimum in such circumstances.

A full explanation of the claimed justification has yet to be issued, but the early signs are characteristically confusing.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said shortly after the strikes that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the attack was needed to, in Lee’s words, “protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” said Lee, a frequent critic of unauthorized foreign military action.

Vice President J.D. Vance had little problem blowing off the authority of Congress under the U.S Constitution. In fact, Vance seems to think we already are operating under a dictatorship. And he is next in line to run the country. Hmmm:

“PSA [Public Service Announcement] for everyone saying this was ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism,” Vance said on X. “You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.”

Did Vance cite any U.S. or international law to support his position? Nope, Trumpers never seem to do that. Vance focused on being a smart ass, which probably is sufficient to satisfy the MAGA base, assuming anyone still is willing to be counted among that base. CNN's Blake has more:

At a later news conference, Rubio echoed the line that the military had been supporting “a law enforcement function.”

But there are many people living in other countries that are under indictment in the United States; it is not the US government’s usual course to launch strikes on foreign countries to bring them to justice. 

The administration also hadn’t previously indicated that military force could be legally used for this reason.

Initially, Trump threatened land strikes inside Venezuela to target drug traffickers – this despite Venezuela being an apparently somewhat small player in the drug-trafficking game. 

Later, the administration suggested strikes might be needed because Venezuela sent bad people into the United States.

And then, after initially downplaying the role of oil in the US pressure campaign against Venezuela and Maduro, Trump said he aimed to reclaim “the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.” 

A veteran Republican was left scratching his head, Blake reports:

The signals were confusing enough that even the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in mid-December indicated the administration lacked “clarity” in its messaging.

“I want clarity right here,” Graham said. “President Trump is saying (Maduro's) days are numbered. That seems to me that he’s gotta go. If it’s the goal of taking him out because he’s a threat to our country, then say it. And what happens next? Don’t you think most people want to know that?”

Despite the focus on the law enforcement operation on Saturday, Trump at the news conference said the United States would now participate in running Venezuela, at least temporarily. And he repeatedly spoke about its oil.

Lindsey Graham wants to know what happens next? It's doubtful he will find a straightforward answer from the Trump administrtion.