The indictment doesn't even cite any US laws Maduro allegedly violated. "Narco-terrorism" is not a crime. It is just a slogan that has no real meaning. And the drug activities noted in the indictment were all related to Columbia, not Venezuela.

They have no intention of taking this to trial. They expect to agree to live comfortably on an island somewhere.

In each count, they alleged either direct violation of a specific federal statute - or conspiracy to violate the identified statute.

For example, narco-terrorism is Title 21 , United States Code, Section 960a. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/960a)

They are working on two fronts - the big bully strongman who is talking gibberish but has the power to order military compliance - and the much more dangerous (and carefully thought out) background legal strategy. As to the law, they are evil, and stretching the laws to places they were never intended to go (challenging the courts to tell them no), but they aren't stupid.

That statute does define some cases where a terroristic action can be prosecuted, but the indictment provides no specifics other than vague guilt by association. No, I did not read every word. But in skimming through it, nothing directly linked to Maduro, and most of what I saw was about Columbia, Mexican drug gangs and other entities with no real connections with Venezuela, and especially no ties with Maduro personally.

It all seems like a gigantic stretch, likely written by an AI request "Give me an indictment brief against Maduro that makes up a lot of shit and uses the term 'narco-terrorism' 150 times."

Considering most of what they are alleging didn't even take place in Maduro's country, I think they will have a hell of a time convincing a jury.

What matters in an indictment is the statute cited, and the alignment of the evidence alleged with the elements of the statute. In each count of the indictment they cited a specific statute. That's all that matters - not what they call it.

The overriding legal rationale for a conspiracy offense (the bulk of the indictment) is that crimes were committed in the US by someone (not necessarily Maduro himself - and that Maduro (anywhere in the world) took concrete steps toward the completion of the conspiracy. The charges against Maduro are very similar to the charges on which the former president of Honduras was convicted. Most of those acts were not conducted on US soil, either.

On the main charges?

I give it < 10%.

Less than25% that it goes to trial. > 75% Maduro gets a nice annuity from ExxonMobil to live in luxury on a tropical island.

If they can get witnesses to testify - pretty high. There was a similar conviction of the former president of Honduras. The difference is that the government at the time in the Honduras cooperated with the United States.

Unfortunately, there is precedent to ignore (at least for the purposes of criminal prosecution) how he was renditioned (even if it is ultimately determined to be illegal).

The summary at the video in this link is the best analysis I've seen of the potential legal issues: https://democraticunderground.com/100220911574

They will threaten the judge and jury and maybe even the defense counsel.

If anything looks like it might fail, they'll suicide him or extradite him to Yemen or something.

We kidnap your leader and steal all your resources.

Would require Maduro soft landing . . . Somewhere.

to happen as a result of this illegal act. I don’t know what but it is too quiet and was too easy.

Pam Bondi wasn't hired for her brains. Her Justice Department has a less than stellar record.

That since both U.S. Law and international law were violated in his kidnapping, the court has little choice but to dismiss the charges. If he is standing trial under US law, US law has to be followed. It wasn't. Not one iota of law was followed.

I doubt the indictment is even valid in the first place. Who's going to testify as to the validity of the charges and as to what they claim as fact? The current Venezuelan government?

It is one of the difference between this set of charges and the similar ones brought against the former president of the Honduras. There, there was a proper extradition - AND - friendly witnesses. Here they have neither.

That the media is falling for this circus! Nothing about this is normal! This is not about Maduro pleading not guilty in court, it's about trump's quid pro quo with the oil companies. It's about raiding the Venezuelan treasury/resources and Maduro is in on it. It's about imperialism, not democracy. It's a distraction from Epstein. When will the media stop being so stupid....

What happens if he's not convicted? The gun charges seem particularly weak.

Using a weapon in the commission of a crime IN ANOTHER COUNTRY? Please.