Democrats Melt Down Over Capture And Arrest Of Dictator Maduro

President Donald Trump ordered a midnight military raid that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. U.S. forces pulled off the job without a hitch, hauling in the pair.

“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” Trump announced on Truth Social at 4:21 EST. “This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow.”

Hours later, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the pair had been indicted.

“Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York,” she explained in a post on X. “Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.”

Bondi then thanked President Trump for “having the courage to demand accountability on behalf of the American People,” as well as a “huge thank you to our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers.”

While Venezuelans hit the streets in wild celebration, popping bottles and celebrating freedom, Democrats in Washington, D.C., clutched their pearls and went into full meltdown mode, accusing Trump of getting us into a war and violating the Constitution.

“Trump’s unilateral operation last night was an illegal act of war without Congress’s authorization,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) claimed.

“Maduro is a brutal dictator who has oppressed the Venezuelan people, but our constitution does not yield for bad people. If Congress is to survive as an institution, the Republican majority must join us exercising our power to hold this administration accountable for this flagrant violation of the constitution.”

He wasn’t the only Democrat to claim that Trump acted illegally.

“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) claimed.

“He says we don’t have enough money for healthcare for Americans—but somehow we have unlimited funds for war??”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also chimed in.

“President Trump’s unilateral military action to attack another country and seize Maduro — no matter how terrible a dictator he is — is unconstitutional and threatens to drag the U.S. into further conflicts in the region,” she argued.

“The American people voted for lower costs, not for Trump’s dangerous military adventurism overseas that won’t make the American people safer.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) similarly accused Trump of getting the United States into an “illegal” war.

“This war is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year,” he said.

But these claims don’t hold water.

“Trump does not need congressional approval for this type of operation,” explains constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley. “Presidents, including Democratic presidents, have launched lethal attacks regularly against individuals. President Barack Obama killed an American citizen under this ‘kill list’ policy. If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.”

Turley likened the operation to the 1989 capture and prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. U.S. courts upheld the “abduction” model and rejected head‑of‑state immunity and extradition‑treaty objections. 

“Legally, Trump has the upper hand in this case. Maduro will replay the arguments from the Noriega case. However, he presents an even weaker case on the merits under the controlling precedent than did Noriega,” Turley explained.