Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been
convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
On 06/01/26 12:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been
convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Trump is famous for changing his mind. Any day now, someone is going to
tell him that Venezuelan oil has a problem that makes it expensive to
refine.
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will >successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
[1] Now that I think of it, the US Supreme Court has already created a >precedent for that ruling.--
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:29:48 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will
successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
Evening news on MS-NOW (formerly MSNBC) suggests that the
indictment itself may be embarrassingly vague in accusations --
an exception was noting that the wife, whom he met in 2013,
had a meeting facilitating a drug bribe in 2007.
[1] Now that I think of it, the US Supreme Court has already created a
precedent for that ruling.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:29:48 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 06/01/26 12:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been
convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Trump is famous for changing his mind. Any day now, someone is going to
tell him that Venezuelan oil has a problem that makes it expensive to
refine.
(Monday evening), Rachel Maddow described the problems of getting
the oil. It's underground! There's no infrastructure. There's no assurance of stability to justify billions in investment that would
take years to recoup.
Now there is doubt that Trump DID talk to oil companies beforehand.
That seems weird -- supporting a disreputable justification with a
secondary claim that is not even true.
That follows the earlier, lying justification for Trump's hostility --
drug trade. Honduras exports much more to the US and Trump
just gave a pardon to their convicted president. (Or is that, "sold
a pardon"...?) Venezuela exports cocaine which is not the drug
of main concern, and sends it to Europe rather than the US.
Rachel Maddow hypotheszes that one purpose is to condition
us to the arbitrary and irrational use of American forces. And,
I guess, to set the precedent and win MAGA acquiescence.
She sees more sense than I see. I was figuring that this was
another stupid bug up his ass (like his obsession with tariffs),
dating back to 1976 when Venezuela nationalized ("stole") the
oil company's investments.
Trump is not a details guy (as someone else mentioned lately),
but Trump also is not a big-ideas guy.
Trump is the shiny-object
guy who can get infatuated with anything BIG enough and
startling enough; all it would take to inspire this trashing of
international law is for the idea to be supported by one or two
of the crazies who now surround him.
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will
successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
Evening news on MS-NOW (formerly MSNBC) suggests that the
indictment itself may be embarrassingly vague in accusations --
an exception was noting that the wife, whom he met in 2013,
had a meeting facilitating a drug bribe in 2007.
[1] Now that I think of it, the US Supreme Court has already created a
precedent for that ruling.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:29:48 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 06/01/26 12:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been
convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Trump is famous for changing his mind. Any day now, someone is going to
tell him that Venezuelan oil has a problem that makes it expensive to
refine.
(Monday evening), Rachel Maddow described the problems of getting
the oil. It's underground! There's no infrastructure. There's no
assurance of stability to justify billions in investment that would
take years to recoup.
Now there is doubt that Trump DID talk to oil companies beforehand.
That seems weird -- supporting a disreputable justification with a
secondary claim that is not even true.
That follows the earlier, lying justification for Trump's hostility --
drug trade. Honduras exports much more to the US and Trump
just gave a pardon to their convicted president. (Or is that, "sold
a pardon"...?) Venezuela exports cocaine which is not the drug
of main concern, and sends it to Europe rather than the US.
Rachel Maddow hypotheszes that one purpose is to condition
us to the arbitrary and irrational use of American forces. And,
I guess, to set the precedent and win MAGA acquiescence.
She sees more sense than I see. I was figuring that this was
another stupid bug up his ass (like his obsession with tariffs),
dating back to 1976 when Venezuela nationalized ("stole") the
oil company's investments.
Trump is not a details guy (as someone else mentioned lately),
but Trump also is not a big-ideas guy. Trump is the shiny-object
guy who can get infatuated with anything BIG enough and
startling enough; all it would take to inspire this trashing of
international law is for the idea to be supported by one or two
of the crazies who now surround him.
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will
successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
Evening news on MS-NOW (formerly MSNBC) suggests that the
indictment itself may be embarrassingly vague in accusations --
an exception was noting that the wife, whom he met in 2013,
had a meeting facilitating a drug bribe in 2007.
[1] Now that I think of it, the US Supreme Court has already created a
precedent for that ruling.
Trump is not a details guy (as someone else mentioned lately),
but Trump also is not a big-ideas guy. Trump is the shiny-object
guy who can get infatuated with anything BIG enough and
startling enough; all it would take to inspire this trashing of
international law is for the idea to be supported by one or two
of the crazies who now surround him.
We have become accustomed to blaming (by attributing) everything on one
US moron - Trump. However the US has always claimed that no one person
e.g. president, can get away with unacceptable actions - and that there
are 'checks and balances' built into the system of government.
My conclusion is that the system of US government is not all what it is cracked up to be. It is full of holes and it is a faulty implementation
of a democratic system. Trump and his cronies have demonstrated this by running circles around the Senate (and Congress) and making a mockery of their system of government.
<Amen>
My conclusion is that the system of US government is not all what it is >cracked up to be. It is full of holes and it is a faulty implementation
of a democratic system. Trump and his cronies have demonstrated this by >running circles around the Senate (and Congress) and making a mockery of >their system of government.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:29:48 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 06/01/26 12:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been
convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Trump is famous for changing his mind. Any day now, someone is going to
tell him that Venezuelan oil has a problem that makes it expensive to
refine.
(Monday evening), Rachel Maddow described the problems of getting
the oil. It's underground! There's no infrastructure. There's no assurance of stability to justify billions in investment that would
take years to recoup.
Now there is doubt that Trump DID talk to oil companies beforehand.
That seems weird -- supporting a disreputable justification with a
secondary claim that is not even true.
That follows the earlier, lying justification for Trump's hostility --
drug trade. Honduras exports much more to the US and Trump
just gave a pardon to their convicted president. (Or is that, "sold
a pardon"...?) Venezuela exports cocaine which is not the drug
of main concern, and sends it to Europe rather than the US.
Rachel Maddow hypotheszes that one purpose is to condition
us to the arbitrary and irrational use of American forces. And,
I guess, to set the precedent and win MAGA acquiescence.
She sees more sense than I see. I was figuring that this was
another stupid bug up his ass (like his obsession with tariffs),
dating back to 1976 when Venezuela nationalized ("stole") the
oil company's investments.
Trump is not a details guy (as someone else mentioned lately),
but Trump also is not a big-ideas guy. Trump is the shiny-object
guy who can get infatuated with anything BIG enough and
startling enough;
all it would take to inspire this trashing of
international law is for the idea to be supported by one or two
of the crazies who now surround him.
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will
successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
Evening news on MS-NOW (formerly MSNBC) suggests that the
indictment itself may be embarrassingly vague in accusations --
an exception was noting that the wife, whom he met in 2013,
had a meeting facilitating a drug bribe in 2007.
[1] Now that I think of it, the US Supreme Court has already created a
precedent for that ruling.
We have become accustomed to blaming (by attributing) everything on one
US moron - Trump. However the US has always claimed that no one person
e.g. president, can get away with unacceptable actions - and that there
are 'checks and balances' built into the system of government.
In article <ms3tvhFkdjcU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
We have become accustomed to blaming (by attributing) everything on one
US moron - Trump. However the US has always claimed that no one person
e.g. president, can get away with unacceptable actions - and that there
are 'checks and balances' built into the system of government.
The people responsible for the peculiar system of "checks and
balances" had the idea that each branch of government and each house
of the legislative branch would be populated by people jealous of
their power and prerogatives, and would aggressively resist
encroachment upon the same by the coordinate branches. They thought
this was superior to the Westminster system where the government of
the day is wholly dependent on (the Framers would have used stronger language, like "subservient to") the lower house. Instead what we
have today is exactly the opposite, with a totally supine Congress
that daren't be seen by voters to be challenging the authority of the presidency.
(This is in large part the fault of single-member
plurality elections and the system of party primaries, but we have no effective means of fixing that absent a new constitution.)
-GAWollman
On top of that, there is a possibility that Maduro's lawyers will
successfully argue that (a) US courts have no jurisdiction over a
serving head of state [1], and/or (b) the court cannot proceed until it
has heard the case against the kidnappers.
Evening news on MS-NOW (formerly MSNBC) suggests that the
indictment itself may be embarrassingly vague in accusations --
an exception was noting that the wife, whom he met in 2013,
which "he" did the meeting?
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been convicted
of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing.-a Is there no oil in Honduras?
On 06/01/2026 02:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the
Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been convicted
of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing.a Is there no oil in Honduras?
Another similar question - will the President of the USA end of serving
a sentence for seditious statements made during the 2020 elections? Or
will he be pardoned because American politicians are boneless cowards?
In article <msc647F1m1cU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam@nowhere.nix says...
On 06/01/2026 02:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been convicted
of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Another similar question - will the President of the USA end of serving
a sentence for seditious statements made during the 2020 elections? Or
will he be pardoned because American politicians are boneless cowards?
Hell, he won't have to go as far as Venezuela to
kidnap any local critics of his Presidency, (and their
partner), hood them, indict them and ???????????????.
These days, you don't need to be a boneless coward, or
American, to dread what Trump might do next. And I'm not
even in Greenland.
Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
In article <msc647F1m1cU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam@nowhere.nix says...
On 06/01/2026 02:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Another similar question - will the President of the USA end of serving
a sentence for seditious statements made during the 2020 elections? Or will he be pardoned because American politicians are boneless cowards?
Hell, he won't have to go as far as Venezuela to
kidnap any local critics of his Presidency, (and their
partner), hood them, indict them and ???????????????.
These days, you don't need to be a boneless coward, or
American, to dread what Trump might do next. And I'm not
even in Greenland.
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
These days, you don't need to be a boneless coward, or
American, to dread what Trump might do next. And I'm not
even in Greenland.
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
On 10/01/26 07:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
-a-a-a These days, you don't need to be a boneless coward, or
American, to dread what Trump might do next. And I'm not
even in Greenland.
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
I hadn't seen Janet's version before, but I just assumed that she was
using natural English words rather that quoting a fixed phrase.
I probably would have said "spineless".
In the UK, you would have your work cut out for you to find a decent selection of poisonous snakes.
Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
On 09/01/2026 23:33, Sam Plusnet wrote:
In the UK, you would have your work cut out for you to find a decent
selection of poisonous snakes.
Try the Conservative Party. It's a pit full of venomous snakes.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Janet wrote:
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
How about "gutless coward" (referring to Keir Starmer's reaction to
the US invasion of Venezuela).
Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
In article <msc647F1m1cU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam@nowhere.nix says...
On 06/01/2026 02:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Will the Predident of Venezuela end up serving the sentence of the Honduran President who Trump recently pardoned - having been convicted of much the same thing?
It all seems quite confusing. Is there no oil in Honduras?
Another similar question - will the President of the USA end of serving
a sentence for seditious statements made during the 2020 elections? Or will he be pardoned because American politicians are boneless cowards?
Hell, he won't have to go as far as Venezuela to
kidnap any local critics of his Presidency, (and their
partner), hood them, indict them and ???????????????.
These days, you don't need to be a boneless coward, or
American, to dread what Trump might do next. And I'm not
even in Greenland.
Is 'craven coward' left-pondian, and 'boneless coward' BrE?
Or is it just whatever sounds nicer, for the occasion?
In article <ms3tvhFkdjcU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
We have become accustomed to blaming (by attributing) everything on one
US moron - Trump. However the US has always claimed that no one person
e.g. president, can get away with unacceptable actions - and that there
are 'checks and balances' built into the system of government.
The people responsible for the peculiar system of "checks and
balances" had the idea that each branch of government and each house
of the legislative branch would be populated by people jealous of
their power and prerogatives, and would aggressively resist
encroachment upon the same by the coordinate branches.
this was superior to the Westminster system where the government of--
the day is wholly dependent on (the Framers would have used stronger >language, like "subservient to") the lower house. Instead what we
have today is exactly the opposite, with a totally supine Congress
that daren't be seen by voters to be challenging the authority of the >presidency. (This is in large part the fault of single-member
plurality elections and the system of party primaries, but we have no >effective means of fixing that absent a new constitution.)
-GAWollman
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:06:20 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (1,690K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,172 |
| Posted today: | 1 |