Maduro FLIPS the SCRIPT on Trump at FIRST Court Appearance - Legal AF

[Rhiannon12866]

Michael Popok reports on the upside down world as he covers the Maduro Arraignment in NY Federal Court today, including the likely Maduro defenses, centered around "Head of State Immunity" resulting in the oddity where an indicted drug lord and head of state tries to use US v. Trump's immunity decision against Trump! - 01/05/2026.

[Skittles]

1. JFC HOW FUCKING ORANGE CAN TRUMP GET

[marble falls]

3. Hopefully enough to blow a gasket or two more.

[marble falls]

2. Dammit. Why won't he play along???? Don't do TACO does, do what he says!!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Trump may have blown up Maduro case in private chat with Morning Joe: legal expert

trump is an idiot and is giving Maduro some good material to use if this case goes to trial

Trump may have blown up Maduro case in private chat with Morning Joe: legal expert

www.rawstory.com/trump-s-priv...

— Anne Grete (GoogeliArt) 🦋💙PD (@googeliart.bsky.social) 2026-01-06T15:10:14.871Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-s-private-remarks-to-morning-joe-could-blow-up-case-against-marduro-legal-expert/

President Donald Trump's private comments to MS NOW's Joe Scarborough could blow up the prosecution of Venezuela's former president Nicolás Maduro.

The "Morning Joe" host revealed Tuesday morning that he'd spoken to the president the previous day, and he told viewers that Trump boasted that the U.S. was going to take over the South American nation's oil production.

"'Joe, the difference between Iraq and this is that [George W.] Bush didn't keep the oil – we're going to keep the oil,'" Scarborough said Trump told him, "and to underline his point, Trump said his comments were no longer on background and said, 'In 2016, I said we should have kept the oil, it caused a lot of controversy. Well, we should have kept the oil.'".....

Those comments, along with similar statements Trump has publicly made, could strengthen Maduro's defense as he fights prosecution in New York on drug and weapons charges, according to MS NOW's legal analyst Lisa Rubin.

"Barry Pollack, who had represented Julian Assange and now represents Maduro, previewed that he is going to make motions to dismiss on the basis of not only head of state immunity, but about the legality of the abduction in the first place," Rubin said.

"And I think that Mr. Pollack would have been very interested in the conversation you had with the president yesterday. Had that conversation taken place before the court appearance, I expect that comments like that would have been addressed, and he would have told the judge this was pretextual."

"This was a military operation all along," Rubin said, anticipating Maduro's defense. "It was always about the oil that the president intends to keep, and not about an indictment or a superseding indictment of Nicolás Maduro, who has been under indictment in the United States already for five-plus years."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Deadline Legal Blog-Why the Maduro case will have us talking about presidential immunity again

Expect the Venezuelan leader to raise an immunity defense to his criminal charges. Don’t expect the Trump treatment.

Why the Maduro case will have us talking about presidential immunity again

https://www.vitaminrush.com/284463/why-the-maduro-case-will-have-us-talking-about-presidential-immunity-again/

Immunity is likely to be among the defenses that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will raise in a bid to …

— (@vitaminrush.bsky.social) 2026-01-07T06:00:17+00:00

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/nicolas-maduro-court-new-york-presidential-immunity

Immunity is likely to be among the defenses that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will raise in a bid to dismiss his federal indictment in New York. Specifically, he may argue that he is entitled to “head of state” immunity as the leader of Venezuela. Courts have recognized such sovereign protection since long before the Supreme Court granted broad criminal immunity to former U.S. presidents in Trump v. United States.

But Maduro won’t necessarily benefit from that long-recognized form of immunity. The Department of Justice would likely argue that he’s an illegitimate leader and therefore isn’t entitled to such immunity. The indictment refers to Maduro as having “previously” been the Venezuelan president and by “having remained in power despite losses in recent elections” became “the de facto but illegitimate ruler of the country.”

The foreign immunity issue surfaced decades ago in the prosecution of Panama’s Manuel Noriega, whose case may be the most similar to Maduro’s. Ruling against Noriega on appeal after his conviction, a federal appeals court panel noted that the Florida federal trial judge presiding over Noriega’s case rejected his head-of-state immunity claim because the U.S. never recognized him as Panama’s legitimate ruler.

“Noriega has cited no authority that would empower a court to grant head-of-state immunity under these circumstances,” the 11th Circuit appellate panel wrote in its 1997 ruling.

Yet there’s at least one factor that could distinguish the Noriega case in Maduro’s favor. The circuit panel further noted that Noriega “never served as the constitutional leader of Panama,” while the U.S. seems to concede that Maduro was at least at one point Venezuela’s legitimate leader. That alone might not be enough for Maduro to win immunity, but his legitimacy — and who legally gets to decide that legitimacy — may play a key role in this litigation.

Maduro’s case is proceeding in New York, which falls under a different federal circuit, the 2nd, so the 11th Circuit ruling in Noriega’s case isn’t binding in New York. But New York courts can still cite it to inform their rulings in Maduro’s case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court that granted Trump broad immunity may decide this or other aspects of Maduro’s prosecution, or both.