The Dictatorship
Venezuela seeks to criminalize oil tanker seizures
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela’s parliament on Tuesday approved a measure that criminalizes a broad range of activities that can hinder navigation and commerce in the South American country, such as the seizure of oil tankers.
The bill — introduced, debated and approved within two days in the National Assembly — follows this month’s seizures by U.S. forces of two tankers carrying Venezuelan oil in international waters. The seizures are the latest strategy in U.S. President Donald Trump’s four-month pressure campaign on Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro.
The tankers are part of what the Trump administration has said is a fleet Venezuela uses to evade U.S. economic sanctions.
The unicameral assembly, which is controlled by Venezuela’s ruling party, did not publish drafts on Tuesday nor the final version of the measure. But as read on the floor, the bill calls for fines and prison sentences of up to 20 years for anyone who promotes, requests, supports, finances or participates in “acts of piracy, blockades or other international illegal acts” against commercial entities operating with the South American country.
Venezuela’s political opposition, including Nobel Peace laureate María Corina Machadohas expressed support for Trump’s Venezuela policy, including the seizure of tankers. Machado and Trump have both repeatedly said that Maduro’s days in power are numbered.
The bill, which now awaits Maduro’s signature, also instructs the executive branch to come up with “incentives and mechanisms for economic, commercial and other protections” for national or foreign entities doing business with Venezuela in the event of piracy activities, a maritime blockade or other unlawful acts.
The U.S. Coast Guard on Saturday seized a Panama-flagged vessel called Centuries that officials said was part of the fleet moving sanctioned cargo. With assistance from the U.S. Navy, it seized a rogue tanker called Skipper on Dec. 10. That ship was registered in Panama.
Trump, after that first seizure, said the U.S. would carry out a “blockade” of Venezuela. He later demanded that Venezuela return assets that it seized from U.S. oil companies years ago, justifying anew his announcement of the blockade against sanctioned oil tankers traveling to or from the South American country.
At an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council called by Venezuela, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz on Tuesday stressed that sanctioned oil tankers “operate as the primary economic lifeline for Maduro and his illegitimate regime.”
“Maduro’s ability to sell Venezuela’s oil enables his fraudulent claim to power and his narco-terrorist activities,” Waltz said. “The United States will impose and enforce sanctions to the maximum extent to deprive Maduro of the resources he uses to fund Cartel de los Soles.”
Maduro was indicted in 2020 on narcoterrorism charges in the U.S. and accused of leading the Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration designated as a foreign terrorist organization last month. But the entity is not a cartel per se.
Venezuelans began using the term Cartel de los Soles in the 1990s to refer to high-ranking military officers who had grown rich from drug-running. As corruption expanded nationwide, its use loosely expanded to police and government officials as well as activities like illegal mining and fuel trafficking.
At Tuesday’s meetingVenezuela’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel Moncada accused the U.S. of acting “outside international law” and its own domestic laws, by demanding that Venezuelans vacate the country and hand it over to the Trump administration, including all its oil fields.
“What right does the United States government have to appropriate, to date, almost 4 million barrels of Venezuelan oil?” Moncada asked, referring to the cargo of the two seized tankers. “This alleged naval blockade is essentially a military act aimed at laying siege to the Venezuelan nation, degrading its economic and military apparatus, weakening its social and political cohesion, and causing internal chaos to facilitate aggression by external forces.”
Many countries expressed concern about violations of international maritime law and adhering to the United Nations Charter, which requires all 193 member nations to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every other country. The United States’ actions were supported by a few countries, including Panama and Argentina.
___
Associated Press writer Edith Lederer in New York contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson chides ‘oblivious’ Supreme Court conservatives…
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme CourtJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson has delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues’ use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration, calling the orders “scratch-paper musings” that can “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”
The court’s newest justice, Jackson delivered a lengthy assessment of roughly two dozen court orders issued last year that allowed President Donald Trump to put in place controversial policies on immigration, steep federal funding cuts and other topics, after lower courts found they were likely illegal.
While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed Trump to move ahead — for now — with key parts of his sweeping agenda.
Jackson spoke for nearly an hour on Monday at Yale Law School, which posted a video of the event on Wednesday.
Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly talked about emergency orders in an event Tuesday at the University of Alabama that also took issue with the conservatives’ approach.
Jackson has previously criticized the emergency orders both in dissenting opinions and in an unusual appearance with Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month. But her talk at Yale, addressing the public rather than the other eight justices, was notable.
She referred to orders, which often are issued with little or no explanation as “back-of-the-envelope, first-blush impressions of the merits of the legal issue.”
Worse still, she said, was that the court then insists that “those scratch-paper musings” be applied by lower courts in other cases.
The orders suffer from an additional problem, she said, a failure to acknowledge that real people are involved, making them “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”
She also pushed back on the court’s assessment that preventing the president from putting his policy in place also is a harm that often outweighs what the challengers to a policy might face.
“The president of the United States, though he may be harmed in an abstract way, he certainly isn’t harmed if what he wants to do is illegal,” Jackson said during a question-and-answer session with law school dean Cristina Rodriguez.
The court used to be reluctant to step into cases early in the legal process, she said. “There is value in avoiding having the court continually touching the third rail of every divisive policy issue in American life,” Jackson said.
While she said she couldn’t explain the change, “in recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a decidedly different approach to addressing emergency stay applications. It has been noticeably less restrained, especially with respect to pending cases that involve controversial matters.”
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
Jackson, often joined by Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, has frequently dissented.
There have been conversations about emergency orders among the justices, Jackson said, but she decided to speak publicly with the goal of being “a catalyst for change.”
Also on Wednesday, Sotomayor issued a rare public apology to another justice, Kavanaugh, for what she termed “hurtful comments” she made last week during an appearance at the University of Kansas law school.
Referencing an opinion Kavanaugh wrote in an immigration case where the court granted an emergency order sought by the administration, Sotomayor said her colleague “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Her remarks were reported by Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation projectaccording to two people familiar with the visit.
Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation.
The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe.
Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project.
Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.”
AP AUDIO: Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell
AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on more drama surrounding a federal probe of a massive construction project at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters.
“Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote.
Republican Tillis is key vote
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin WarshTrump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval.
Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June.
Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way.
“There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved.
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down.
But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported.
The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named.
Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board.
Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.”
Investigation centers on building renovations
The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.
“It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?”
The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after.
Threat to fire Powell
News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.
“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said.
Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates.
Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.”
Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal
Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.
The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.
The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiouslycalling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”
___
AP Writers Seung Min Kim, Mark Sherman, Paul Wiseman, Alanna Durkin Richer, and video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end
SnoCountry Mountain Reports
Sports Betting Line
Pacific Northwest Sportswatch Daily Listings
Gulf States Sportswatch Daily Listings
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?






