Dems’ Maduro Hypocrisy: Guy Brings Receipts

From the heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. It is Tuesday, January the 6th, 2026. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. I'm your host, Guy Benson, a Fox News political analyst, senior columnist at the Washington Examiner, and with you here for the next three hours every weekday, between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern, Guy Benson.com, Fox News Podcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'll be on the tube tonight, 640, 645-ish. Fox Business Network on the bottom line. Looking forward to that. Here on the radio, great lineup in store. Starting with Byron York coming up later this hour on some immigration developments that we really want to cover. Paul Morrow is at the courthouse where Nicholas Maduro was arraigned. He's been following that story. We will get a report from Paul in our next hour. We will also talk to U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. on foreign policy, domestic policy, a lot to get to with her. And then Professor Jonathan Turley, he was on the panel with me on Fox News Sunday a few days ago. He's a constitutional lawyer, a constitutional law professor, and I want to ask him about the legal side of this mission into Venezuela. which a lot of people, some of the critics, are calling illegal or extra constitutional, lawless, etc. Is that true? What's the precedent? What does the law say? We will talk to Professor Turley later in the show. Yesterday, when we were tackling what happened with Maduro, as he and his wife are sitting in jail cells now in New York City, I wanted to focus mostly on the geopolitical impact. and some of the bigger questions about what happened, not so much the petty, stupid, knee-jerk, partisan politics here in the United States. But there's plenty of that, of course, and I would like to address some of it. It is much less important, in my view, than what happens next in Venezuela. I have been moved to see Venezuelans in the diaspora and in Venezuela. just overwhelmed with joy that this man was taken into custody, to face justice for his crimes, and most importantly, to give them at least a chance, an opportunity to reclaim a functioning, thriving democracy, which is what they were not that long ago. We talked to Daniel DiMartino of Venezuela here on the show yesterday.

Just a few decades ago, Venezuela, which is resource rich, especially with their oil, Venezuela was the richest country on the continent. And then the left-wingers, the socialists, won an election, Hugo Chavez, and then began to undermine democracy and then completely trample over democracy. And even though they've had elections over the last 25 years, They have not been legitimate because they've been stolen. And it is just open and shut clear that they were stolen. The regime, which went from Chavez to Maduro, lost decisively in a number of these elections. And there's proof of that. And then they said, nope, we want anyway, and they have refused to relinquish power. It is a dictatorship, is an illegitimate government. It has been recognized as an illegitimate government by the United States and by dozens of other countries around the world for years. But there is that muscle memory. There is within a lot of Venezuelan's lifetime this golden era that they can harken back to. where their country was doing very well before it was absolutely wrecked. The democracy stolen, the wealth stolen, and it became incredibly poor, indigent, suffering, which is why you've had roughly a third, a quarter to a third of the population flee. It's been that bad on top of all the political repression and the crackdowns and the things that communists do. They took incredible success, prosperity, and wealth. and they turned it into this. And the people of Venezuela, including those who fled, they have this flicker now, a flicker of light, that they can go back to what they were. Self-determining, or self-determining rather, self-determination, a legitimate democratic system with human flourishing, taking advantage of the many natural resources. in that country. And I'm not saying that it's guaranteed to happen. The woman who's now at least temporarily in charge was, they're calling her, she was the vice president. No, she was the vice dictator. I understand that with the military and a few other factors, you can't just immediately move into giving the opposition power because it's unclear who can govern right now. But if we can get to a point of stability and free elections, the people will turn out in droves to vote and choose for themselves a new direction. That is extremely important. It's also extremely important to see the prowess of our military at work, very inspirational, flawless, really, over the weekend. That is encouraging and refreshing, especially when coupled with the mission over Iran last summer. And especially when juxtaposed with the absolute humiliation and failure that was the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021. That's another bigger question here, a bigger issue. And then, last but not least, on the more important side of the ledger, more important side of things before we get to the internal politics here in the United States, I think the message being sent to adversaries and enemies all over the world.

is an important one. Because you better believe eyebrows were arched at the very least. In Moscow and Beijing, and especially Tehran, given the street protests there, some of the worst regimes on planet Earth were all cooperating with Maduro. They were operating in our hemisphere in Venezuela. And in fact, there was a Chinese delegation that had just met with Maduro. They were in town for that meeting, and then we snatched him. That is a message to other despots and tyrants elsewhere as well, especially when the president of the United States gives warnings and options, and those are defied. It is now becoming clear it's not consequence-free anymore. It's not a sternly worded letter from some politicians in Washington or at Turtle Bay at the UN or in Brussels at the EU where they tisk, tisk, and post a little... comment about solidarity on X and then go on with their day and have no intention of ever doing anything. That is not that inaction, that impunity is very much no longer guaranteed for some of these bad actors, as has now been demonstrated through hard American power multiple times. That is the bigger side of this. But let's come to the petty partisan politics as well. I saw that former Vice President Kamala Harris, who I guess wants to run again, having lost pretty badly last year, two years ago now, 2024, she is against what Trump did. She said the actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable. She says, yes, Maduro's brutal, illegitimate dictator. Right? Like, oh, of course he's bad, but I'm not going to do anything about that. This action is both unlawful, she says, and unwise. Now, her judgment is terrible. She's wrong about almost everything. Her gut told her to pick Tim Walz as a running mate. I mean, the list is long about how bad her judgment is. So the anti-endorsement from her, I think, in some ways, might count as a pretty powerful endorsement of a course of action. But even if you are sympathetic to her argument that this was unlawful and unwise, and we'll talk to the lawful question with Jonathan Turley later in the show, how unwise could it possibly have been to go in and take Maduro the way that the Trump administration did, given the fact, and I made this point on Fox News Sunday, given the fact it was reported on in the New York Times? It was on the official administration website during Biden and Harris and their term in office. They placed a $25 million bounty on Maduro, the Biden-Harris administration. They offered a reward, a very rich reward of our money, $25 million for information leading to the arrest and capture of Nicholas Maduro.

And now the Trump administration has gone in and captured and arrested Nicholas Maduro, which was the official policy of the Biden-Harris administration. They didn't recognize him as a legitimate leader. He's a dictator. And here's $25 million to anyone who might lead to his arrest. And then the Trump team comes in and gets it done. And Kamala Harris is like, this is unlawful and unwise. What the hell do you think a bounty is? Kamala Harris. Why were you offering up a pot of gold for someone else to arrest this guy? If you felt like he should be arrested, why are you all up in arms when we actually did it? You were willing to pay someone else $25 million to do it. Now you're mad that we did it? I think that that is incoherent. I think they like to talk tough and then do nothing. They like to signal, virtue signal, put out their little statements from behind a laptop or whatever, stand in front of a podium, look serious, say a few words like do not come to the southern border, remember how well that worked, and then do nothing. And when it comes to doing something, even after it's over, having been successful, They certainly can't be for that if it was done by Donald Trump, right? They want words, not action. They're very queasy about action. And then when the action happens and it's done by Trump, then it's an outrage. This comes from other Democrats who prominently were basically demanding that Trump in the past take out Maduro or do something more seriously. So back in 2020, toward the end of the first Trump administration. Here is Senator Chuck Schumer of New York saying, mocking the Trump administration, sort of goading the Trump administration on this very issue. This was 2020, Chuck Schumer cut nine. Maybe the best metaphor was his claim to bring democracy to Venezuela. There was a big policy there. It flopped. If the policy was working, Juan Guido wouldn't be in the balcony here. He'd be in Venezuela. He'd be sitting in the president's palace, or at least waging a fight to win. He's here. And the president brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn't brought an end to the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is more powerful today and more entrenched today than it was when the president began his anti-Modora. There's Chuck. Give me a break. The president has an edited Maduro's regime. Maduro's regime is stronger. Trump just went and got Maduro. He had the Delta Force go in, kick the door in, slap handcuffs on him, and put him on an airplane and a ship, and set him up to New York for trial. Because there's a standing criminal indictment against the guy. in the United States, a federal indictment against him. So Chuck Schumer was saying back then, whoa, Trump hasn't ended this regime. Maduro's stronger than ever, like that was a criticism of Trump. Now Trump did the opposite, and what did we get from Chuck Schumer? Same old, same old. He's against it. He's mad about it. He has given a number of speeches and interviews where he said,

This is a violation of the law, didn't get authorization from Congress. It's lawless. It's reckless. It's just always a lose-lose. They don't actually believe anything, apparently. Whatever Trump does, if it's inaction in Venezuela, bad. Action in Venezuela, bad. Chuck Schumer, by the way, accused us of bombing civilians. There are civilian locations in Venezuela during the operation. Have you heard about any civilians killed? I'm not sure what the point of that was, just like taking a shot at the military in the process because you're mad about Trump no matter what he does. Here's another example. Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, during the first Trump administration, was very active with his little Twitter machine. He tweeted the best thing that ever happened to Nicholas Maduro was Donald Trump. Murphy insisted that Trump has, quote, strengthened Maduro's grip on power and frittering away any chance of a democratic transition. He urged Trump to make the realest case for intervention in Venezuela because he said that was, quote, getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States. That was Chris Murphy. Oh. Maduro, it's a huge gift that Donald Trump is president. Best thing to ever happen to Maduro is Donald Trump. Because it strengthened his grip on power. What he should do, what Trump should do is make the case for intervention in Venezuela because getting rid of Maduro is good for the U.S. That was Murphy during the first Trump administration. Now Trump has given him that intervention and got rid of Maduro. which Chris Murphy said would be good for the United States, and now Chris Murphy is saying what? Well, you can probably guess. Oh, he's against it. He's actually very angry about it. In high duchin, wildly illegal, he said. These people are absolutely full of it. As for taking the fight to drug lords and some of these really bad actors, especially in our hemisphere, I wonder if a certain former senator ever had any thoughts about that. Here's a flashback to cut five. For the first time, we are fighting and losing a war on our own soil. Let's go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force. There must be no safe haven for these narco terrorists, and they must know it. No safe haven for the narco terrorists. Let's go after them where they live. That's exactly what Trump did. Joe Biden, Senator Joe Biden, 1989. I'm not sure if they've woken him up yet to give a statement on any of this, but I could guess it's probably not a positive one because of the reflexive partisanship. See what I'm getting at here? It's hard to have an honest debate about any of this when people are willing to just completely flip 180 based on politics. You'd think this is what they wanted. Nope. Why? Trump. That's the answer. Trump. It's very stupid. It's no way to form policy. We'll be right back.

Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FN Radio 20. 20%. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. I'm Guy Benson. The Democratic National Committee, the DNC, fundraising, off of opposing. The capture of Nicholas Maduro, the socialist dictator, under indictment in the United States. Putting out an email to raise money, calling it another unconstitutional war from Trump. Trump promised peace but has delivered chaos. I'm not sure if that's chaos. That was a surgical, successful, competent mission down there. To take down a guy that the last Democratic administration had a $25 million bounty on. Try to explain that one. They can't. Byron York up next. Back on Guy Benson, Guy Benson. Guy Benson.com is our website. Podcast is free every day. Thank you for listening. We now bring back into the fold, Byron York, chief political correspondent of the Washington Examiner, which is where I now work. He's also a Fox News contributor, also where I work. And so we are now colleagues twice over, Byron, great to have you here. Good to be here, Guy. We're all in just one big fold right now. Yes, yes, very happy to be Team Washington Examiner and Team Fox with you. I want to talk about immigration, but before we get to that, just a few more points that I was addressing in the opening monologue. So I've been... Sort of fascinated by the reaction of Democrats to the Maduro operation in Venezuela. And I should say, in fairness, that there have been some Democrats who have been good. And their statements have been good. John Fetterman, Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey, a member of the House. I think he put out a very sober-minded statement. A few others expressing support. for what the administration did. But overall, the response is, no, it's bad, it's illegal, it's criminal, it's lawless, it's reckless, it's not in our interest, including from a bunch of Democrats who just very recently were expressing their solidarity with the people of Venezuela, demanding action in Venezuela, even from Trump himself, and now immediately singing a very different tune. Martha McCallum, our colleague, on the story yesterday on Fox News Channel, she had an interview with Jason Crow, who is a military veteran. He's a Democrat from Colorado. And the beginning of the interview sounded like this where Crow was worried about a quagmire, cut 13. We've never known it. But the question is whether or not do you get around to a point where you actually take some action or do you just talk about it since 1989?

as we've just heard many prominent Democrats do. The Maduro regime, as it was constructed, exists almost in its entirety as we sit here today in Venezuela. So they should have taken out the whole thing? No, I'm not saying that at all. So we should take out no one. What I'm saying is I don't believe it's in our immediate interests that Americans want us to be engaged in another nation building, Quagmire, like we have done for 20 years. We have about 100. So, Byron, that's the beginning or near the beginning of this exchange, where he sounds. At first, like, disappointed that it wasn't a complete uprooting of the regime overnight. Then he says seconds later that the American people don't want us to be engaged in another nation-building quagmire with all these boots on the ground there for a long period of time. Then later, just moments later in the interview, comes cut 14. Also, you've got Iran, China, Cuba. A lot of bad actors are using it as a forward operating base against the United States. Absolutely, which is part of the problem because you just said we left nobody on the ground. So the Cubans are still there. You said you don't want anyone on the ground. The mistake was that we didn't take out all of the other heads of operation, but you didn't want us to take out Maduro in the first place. So, Byron, if I'm just tracking this man for two minutes. He lamented the fact that the regime wasn't changed. Then he said that what we don't want is a nation-building quagmire. And then he said the problem is that we didn't leave people on the ground to deal with all the foreign bad actors that have infiltrated Venezuela. It's really hard, I think, to interpret that mess as anything other than we are going to find ways to be mad about this because it's Trump. My feeling is, if you've always opposed doing something like this, oppose it now that Donald Trump has done it. Yes. But if you've always been in favor of doing something like this, don't oppose it now that Donald Trump has done it. If you could just stick to that, I think you'd be fine. And I think a lot of Democrats, like Crow, look absolutely foolish, having called for this, and the Biden administration, having put a $25 million reward on Maduro's head, I think it just looks silly and certainly unsurious to do something like this after the president takes action, which was, as we've said many times, Really well done. Turning now to immigration here at home. And by the way, part of the reason that we have extra interest in Venezuela is because of what the Venezuelan regime exported to the United States in terms of chaos and criminality through the southern border. Right. So the Democrats were completely fine. In fact, I saw DHS, the official DHS Twitter handle. had made a very snarky point, but unfortunately, I think it's a fair one. With all the Democrats up in arms about Maduro, DHS tweeted, oh, so the Democrats have finally found a Venezuelan criminal they don't want in the United States. And like, it's a pretty, it's a pretty funny joke to an extent.

But it's also rather sad because there's some truth to it. And it points to a policy incoherence where they, the Venezuelans, set a bunch of their worst intentionally to the U.S. border. And we've seen their crimes now victimizing Americans across the country. That was based on the policies of the Biden-Harris Democratic administration. They've sealed the border, the Trump people have, in very short order, and the Democrats are opposing tooth and nail virtually any deportation. If they're willing to defend Kilmar Obrigo-Garcia, they'll defend anyone, and they are. And then you go and you take out Maduro, and a lot of them have been agitating for that sort of thing for a long time, and they're upset with that. It's just sort of like a lose-lose proposition if it's Trump. And I think most Americans will see that for what it is, which is just this very brain-dead, knee-jerk, partisan move as opposed to anything serious, anything principled, anything thoughtful. But again, as we talk now about what's happening, in the United States, vis-a-vis immigration. There was a story that came out over the holidays, and I made sure to highlight it on the Five and on Fox and Friends. I want to make sure we do so here as well. The Washington Examiner got exclusive data from Ice Byron, looking back to January 20th, 2025, so the day Trump was inaugurated, up until mid-December of 2025. So almost the first year. of the second Trump administration. And there were roughly 600,000 illegal immigrants who were arrested by ICE during that period based on these stats. And again, according to the ICE data reported by the examiner, roughly 7 in 10, roughly 70% of those arrests were illegal immigrants with a criminal history in the United States. That strikes me as a very impressive batting average. and completely antithetical to the line that we hear from Democrats in the media all the time, that the administration isn't actually pursuing the worst of the worst. 70% with a criminal history sounds like a pretty damn good job to me. And that's exactly what the administration has been saying. First, on the 600,000 thing, before the administration took office during the transition, I talked to some people who were very experienced in the immigration system, had worked in the immigration system. And they fully supported what Trump was going to do. And they said, you know, if you really put the pedal to the metal, you can probably deport about 400,000 people in a year. And so 600,000 is really, really something. And by the way,

In addition to that is the estimated 1.9 million who have self-deported in large part because of the example of all the deportation. So the administration is saying 2.5 million people who are here illegally left in the first year of... of President Trump's... So either forcibly or on their own accord? An extraordinary record. And as far as the criminal records are concerned, you're right. I mean, how many stories have you seen? Ice picked up... A person who's done absolutely nothing wrong has no record at all and they're, you know, being thrown into deportation hell. Most of the people have a criminal record. Now, that goes beyond, and I'm sure some of your listeners are saying, but wait a minute, what about crossing illegally into the United States? I mean, anybody who crossed illegally into the United States. began their time in this country with a crime. Now, the other type are the people who actually come here legally on a visa and then overstay that visa, and so they were here illegally. But they didn't arrive illegally. But if you arrived illegally, you started your time in the United States with a crime, and that's just all there is to it. And I think certainly with people who came during the Biden influx, that is, they've been here a very, very short time. The administration has to set. uh an example which is if you come illegally into the united states there are going to be consequences like you don't get to stay yes and again the storyline the fable that we get the emotionalism from the left is oh it's just this poor abuela and she's been here forever And they snapped her up, these horrible people and these iced Gestapo thugs terrorizing neighborhoods to just scoop up all these innocent people and look what they're doing. 70% of the arrests were people with criminal histories who are here illegally. Plus. other arrests, crimes, trials, convictions, etc. That tells a much different story than what has been conveyed, I think, to the public. And then you also have this Byron, which I think dovetails nicely. The Trump administration, remember the Democrats said, oh, and Kamala Harris, her campaign line was, well, we've done everything that we can at the border. We can't fix things without a new law. Not true. Team Trump came in and basically stopped virtually all illegal immigration at the southern border and began this big push, especially targeting illegal immigrant criminals to get them out of the country, those who were already here. Now here's a headline from ABC News. Massive drop in homicides. U.S. poised to end 2025 with the largest one-year drop in homicides ever recorded.

Then you tee that up with and you tether that to the drops in fentanyl poisonings and opioid and drug overdose deaths. Byron, I think that it may not be the single cause, but certainly the immigration policy is having major knock-on effects in terms of violent crime and drug overdoses in this country. And those are things that have to be discussed in the context of immigration enforcement. Yes, and if you really do have 2.5 million people who are in the country illegally leaving, and maybe the number is a little less than that, maybe it's a little more than that. I'm not sure, but it's a huge number, people who are leaving. It really gives you the idea that we imported a certain amount of crime. And there's no reason to do that. And obviously the stories have got a lot of coverage mostly on Fox News and places like the Washington Examiner were some of these terrible, terrible crimes that took place committed by people who were here illegally. But I think what the statistics show is that there's just a lot of everyday crime. committed by people who are here illegally. And there's no reason that they should remain in the United States. Byron York, there is also a little contratoms in the last 24 hours or so. I'm a Hilton Hotels person. I travel a lot. I tend to use Hilton Brand hotels. And I was therefore pretty concerned to see a story about Hilton Hotels refusing to allow ICE or DHS personnel. to book rooms in order to carry out their duties in Minnesota, the home of Tim Walz. We'll be talking more about him later in the show, by the way. And this became a bit of a thing online. Bill Malugner, our colleague, was covering it. DHS was blowing the whistle on this. They had screenshots of emails where just the hotel staff straight up said, oh, I'm sorry, you're with ICE or DHS. We're not going to... actually rent this room to you. We're canceling your reservation. We're not going to be a part of this. Where did this go? Because it looks like the national brand, the international brand of Hilton, came under enormous scrutiny on this. And they now have an explanation. What happened here? Well, basically, I believe Hilton has essentially cut loose the Hampton Inn that was involved in this, saying that it was done because of the independent owner of the hotel, which was licensed as a Hampton Inn by Hilton, was doing this on his own, and Hilton seems... to be very embarrassed by what took place, and has now severed that relationship. But, you know, when you said that he straight up told ISIS, I was stunned by how brazen they were, saying, you work for ICE, you're deporting people, you can't stay at this hotel. And I thought, man, is that, was that a low-level person? Was that the owner of the hotel who did that?

But it sounds to me like it's kind of got a happy ending, which is this hotel has lost its association with Hilton. Yeah, because I was wondering, and I asked publicly on my Twitter feed on X, Guy Benson, is this the official policy of Hilton Hotels? Because that would have been very concerning to me as a customer. And you think about what the precedent would be there. And thankfully, Hilton came and said, oh, absolutely not. This is not our corporate policy. This was some rogue individual hotel personnel or owner or staffer doing this. And that is not acceptable to us, and therefore the ties have been severed. But Byron, I mean, we've seen this kind of whether it's... denying, you know, agents the ability to rent a room or we've seen other examples of little groups getting together and blaring sirens and banging on pots and pans outside. hotels where ICE is known to be staying to try to keep them up at night so they don't get a good night's sleep so they can't perform as well the next day i mean there's a lot of these sort of guerrilla tactics afoot to say nothing of the huge explosion of violent attacks against these federal agents and i almost never see condemnations even of the violent attacks by almost any elected democrats And to tie this back to what we were saying with the deportation numbers, for ICE to be performing at that level under this kind of harassment and in this kind of danger is really, really extraordinary. You're right. I mean, there have been actual the Antifa attack on ICE agents in... uh in texas that uh fortunately did not kill anybody wounded one local police officer but he he uh recovered uh that attack was extraordinary they came with ar-fifteens communications weapons armor armor plates all sorts of stuff ready to kill as many ice people uh as they could fortunately they they weren't very good at what they did that was a great blessing but um The fact that ICE has accomplished all this in the face of this kind of resistance is really extraordinary. Yep, they're doing it in many places under duress with opposition from the local leadership that I think in some cases are egging on the types of violence and actions that we're talking about here. Byron York, we'll leave it there for now. We'll talk again, I'm sure, many times in this new year. Chief political correspondent at my new writing home, the Washington Examiner. Byron, thanks so much. Thank you, Guy. We will step aside and come back after this. Always fresh, always fair. Guy Benson. Back here on Guy Benson, some sad news. A Republican congressman from California, Doug LaMalfa, has passed away at the age of 65. So our condolences to his family, and that's young.

So that is very unfortunate news. I just saw that this morning. Meanwhile, Indiana Congressman Jim Baird has been hospitalized. This is a Republican after a car crash. He's, I believe, 80 years old. So that would be one vacancy and then another Republican who at least for now is out of commission and we wish Congressman Baird a very speedy recovery. And obviously if you're in either of those families, By far, the issues that we just talked about are much more important than politics. That being said, here in Washington, D.C., the math was already really tough for House Republicans with their tiny, tiny majority. Now with another vacancy and someone else hospitalized, and Thomas Massie often voting against the party, you're down to a majority of two seats, maybe one. That is very precarious, and you really have to avoid more vacancies, or could you have, like, a Democrat slight majority? Keeping an eye on that, as the new year begins on Guy Benson, another hour is up next.

Generation of Conservative Talk. Right here, right now. Fair, fun, and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of Fox News. Fox News. You're listening to Guy Benson. And now here's your host, Guy Benson. It's a brand new hour here on Guy Benson, Tuesday edition, from our nation's capital. Thank you for tuning in, Guy Benson.com. Podcasts always free, always on demand. When the show is over, and when the show ends today at 6 p.m. Eastern, I'll be getting ready for TV. The bottom line, Fox Business Network. I'm a guest on that program this evening. Fox News alert as we headed to the middle hour. Another booming day on Wall Street, the Dow, up 484 points at the close, finishing at 49,462. Well, with us now is our colleague Paul Morrow, Fox News contributor, attorney, retired NYPD inspector. He was down at the courthouse yesterday for the arraignment of Venezuelan dictator, Nicholas Maduro, who was snatched up by Delta Four Skies on Saturday night and brought to the United States of America to face justice. Paul, great to have you here. What did you see yesterday? Thank you, guys. Good to be here. So, you know, I think a lot of it's been pretty widely reported. The body language was very much of a wife who is wondering, how did I get myself into this? She looked quite shrunken and defeated, although she's no angel, if you read into her history. But a head of state who still thinks that he is a head of state, thinks that he should be treated as the president of his country. I wouldn't say he was quite outraged, but he comported himself as if all of this was a bit beneath him and that he expects to be accorded the respect of the president of Venezuela. And I don't think he's quite got the message yet what he's into here. Yeah, and he's not the president of Venezuela. In fact, he was never the legitimate president of Venezuela. What comes next in this legal process? So their next court date is March 17th, as they said. In court, there's going to be a lot of just sort of administrative stuff, ministerial backroom things to set up a motion practice schedule so that subsequent to March 17th, they can start exchanging discovery. Mostly it's going to be going one way, that is the prosecution is going to be fronting its evidence. And the defense is going to be fronting its challenges to that evidence. That's how our system works. Before it ever gets to trial, they argue over the evidence. And the defense, I think, is already telegraphed that they're going to argue various tenets of international law, say that this was a kidnapping, that it was an illegitimate use of police powers. I fully expect all of that to fail for one of the reasons being what you just said, he was not the legitimate president, so he doesn't have presidential immunity. And then ultimately, if they don't cut a deal with him, we'll have a trial.

You know, we talked to a Venezuelan on the show yesterday, Daniel DiMartino. He talked about some of the scenes outside the courthouse. I'm not sure how much you saw of that. But around the country, Paul, we've seen this outpouring of support for this mission by Venezuelans. And the counter protesters are a bunch of communists who are basically saying, we stand with the people of Venezuela against American imperialism, and then they're being corrected in real time, in real life, and on the Internet by actual Venezuela and saying you have no idea what you're talking about. You do not speak for us whatsoever. And they seem to not really be able to process that reality. You're 100% right. I was there yesterday. I got outside. I was outside before the event, and then during the actual arraignment, I was inside, but then I was back outside. And I can tell you that it was comforting to see that there were more protesters, or at least even, in support of this, as opposed to against it. And those against it claimed that the Bolivarian Revolution is being hijacked. They are literally communists. They're clueless, and it was the usual concoction of aging woodstock hippies that you get in New York City, and clueless young Zerunistas who know not a lick about history and don't want to know how brutal and dictatorial. the depredations visited upon the Venezuelan people by not only Chavez, but then I think even worse, Maduro. You know, I mean, if you're a Hamas fan, you might be a Maduro fan as well. So some of that kind of tracks. Speaking of Zohran Mamdani, I know we have limited time with you here today, Paul, but we've now seen a bunch of comments from this CEO Weaver woman who Zohran Mamdani has put in a position of power in terms of housing in New York City, talking about how private property needs to be reaffirmed imagined in its white supremacy and all of that. Is that appointment of that woman emblematic, 30 seconds, Paul, of the first six days of this mayoralship? It does seem so. Zohran Mamdani, I don't know if you saw, you just broke, is standing by her. And one of the ways you know that you're into a hyper-leftist, progressive slash socialist slash communist-communist administration is when you start to see titles for positions like you've never seen before, this moment is somehow or rather the director of tenant justice or some high-falutant term like that. It's just redistributionist. He's already said collectivism, then he pivoted right to housing. You and I both know that when you're collectivizing housing, you're talking about communes, and that's communism. It's doomed to fail because at the end of the day, we do have a constitution, and New York is still part of this country. Six days and counting in the Zohran Mamdani.

mayor, rain, and we will be talking a lot more about it with Paul Morrow and others in the days to come. Paul, thanks so much for that report. We'll be right back with an update on Governor Jazzhams after this. You're listening to a new generation of talk. Generation of Talk, Guy Benson. I'm Guy Benson. We're back here on the program. Well, Jazz Hands, the governor of Minnesota, announced yesterday he will not, after all, seek re-election later this year. He is just drowning in this fraud scandal. But he is also in the process of touting a new welfare program that can be exploited by fraudsters that has just come online this year, like a few days ago, in the state of Minnesota. And he's very excited about it. Because all the generosity and largesse of taxpayers that has been abused to the tune of billions, that wasn't enough of a pot to attract fraud tourism, apparently. And by the way, fraud tourism is the term used by the federal prosecutors in Minnesota, saying that it was so easy. to exploit and manipulate Minnesota's system that people literally move to Minnesota, including apparently a lot of Somalis, in order to bilk taxpayers out of billions, plural, billions of dollars. And rather than getting a handle on this and putting an end to it and achieving widespread accountability, the Democrats who dominate Minnesota and Governor Walls, they're saying, no, here's a new program. It's a paid leave program. And by the way, is it open to illegal immigrants? Yes, it is. Mia Cothel, who used to be my colleague at Town Hall now is my colleague at the Washington Examiner, she wrote about this last month. She wrote, Governor Tim Walz is promoting a new government assistant program open to illegal immigrants in Minnesota as he faces scrutiny for allegedly vowing statewide welfare fraud, reportedly committed primarily by Somali immigrants, to happen on his watch. The Minnesota paid family and medical leave program, which Walls signed into law and is publicly praising ahead of the start date January 1, will cover undocumented workers, according to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's, frequently asked questions page and basically what this program will do is over a 12-week coverage period of one's choosing. The program provides payments to Minnesota residents who say they need time away from work for serious health reasons or to take care of a family member, whether an infant or an ill-relative or anything like that. If an individual qualifies for both medical and family leave, they can double dip, as the Chamber of Commerce puts it, and take off a total of 20 weeks or five and a half months within a single year.

Claimants can also top off paid leave by using paid time off, sick days, and vacation hours, in addition to their leave of absence, a mechanism known as supplemental payment. Based on income level, program beneficiaries will receive between 55 and 90 percent of their regular wages while on paid leave with a maximum amount set at the state's average weekly wage, which is $1,400 or so dollars per week. And a lot of the critics of the program are saying there are no guardrails or very few guardrails for preventing this from being abused and taken advantage of. And I think a lot of the onus from what I've read is actually on employers. The oversight of this is if there's anything to be learned from how things operate in Minnesota, it's going to be very lax. And already you're seeing people flooding in and asking to take advantage of this. I'm sure some of them are legitimate Minnesotan taxpayers who are facing a really tough family situation. And this is a very welcome development. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that at least some of them are fraudsters who are delighted to have yet another pile of money to draw from as they make claims about how they need to take some paid time off courtesy of this new law. Now, we see Governor Walls touting this as a big achievement right smack dab in the middle of this firestorm. over the billion-plus dollar fraud schemes that have really consumed his administration. And a few weeks ago when he was asked about that, like, isn't this another opportunity for bad actors to come in and get free money fraudulently, his reaction rather than recognizing the moment, looking around, reading the room, understanding what's happening in his state, what has come to light? in this huge burgeoning scandal, he decided instead to get very indignant. Cut 26. Aren't people going to abuse the program? How disrespectful to people to assume that all Minnesotans are scamming. That's what I hear from them all the time. I trust Minnesotans. I believe in Minnesotans. I believe they know. You're not going to get rich. Amazing. It's so disrespectful, he pretends to say. It's so disrespectful to ask that question. No, it's not. It most certainly is not, Governor. When you have billions of dollars walking out the door from fraudsters in your state, a lot of whom just showed up in the state for the explicit purpose of fraud, if you're giving them a greater opportunity, a brand new avenue for fraud and grift and crime with a bunch of money with very little oversight based on these critics, it is a no-brainer question, actually. It is an extremely relevant question to ask, how are you going to prevent fraud? And he says that's disrespectful because he trusts Minnesotans. Unfortunately, there are enough people living in the state of Minnesota who have proven themselves unworthy of that trust, who actually deserve disrespect based on their behavior. And the fact that walls...

is pretending feigning umbrage over a question like that ever first of all but especially in this moment proves that no lessons have been learned, and it will be absolutely impossible for him, his administration, and I would argue his party to fix and clean up virtually any of this, because they are opening up new fronts in the fraud gravy train for fraudsters, and then when someone asks about it, that's like, how dare you? Now, Walls gave a press conference, again promoting this today. And he's talking about this like it is a fabulous new program with zero downsides, taking a bunch of shots at the Republicans. He said the Republican legislators did everything they could to stop this. He said they get no thanks for this whatsoever. He said the Republicans voted against this. The Republicans' goal to have none of these programs. He said, I can guarantee you one way to ensure there's no fraud. Just don't do the program. This is his argument. He's saying, here's a brand new welfare program, open to illegal immigrants. You're welcome, Minnesota. And these guys voted against it. I think voting against it is a very good idea. And then his argument is, well, they don't like fraud. Well, I guess they hate fraud so much that they would rather not have the new program than risk fraud. Actually, yes. I don't think that you need yet another welfare program in Minnesota, given how badly the existing ones have been abused. under the watchful eye or not so watchful eye, or the winking eye, perhaps, of the Walt's administration. So I'm not sure ripping the Republicans for voting against this is the own that he thinks it is. And then to say, oh, well, the best way to have no fraud is to not to have the program, I think he believes that's a really good burn, especially right now, sir, it is not. And one of the questions I have for voters in Minnesota, because all right, Walls is not running for re-election. He's had this enormous fall from grace from the VP nominee last year now to this, the ignominious end of his political career upcoming. But does that mean that any of these problems will really be solved if you just bring in yet another Democrat to continue this mentality and the weaponization of identity politics and just endless taxpayer funds going to this stuff? If you just reshuffle the Democrat deck chairs on the sinking ship, is that actually a solution? Or do you need significant change and reform and accountability from the party, the opposition party in Minnesota, the Republicans that Walls was attacking? By the way, at that press conference, Walls was asked about his decision not to run for re-election. This is an all-time pivot, cut 38. Did you make the decision to end your campaign by yourself, or did you receive pressure from Democratic Dallas? This is a decision that I make and make with my family, and certainly I think, as I said, it's the right decision. We'll note, I think it's appropriate. We're here today. The war that's being waged against Minnesota, you're seeing it. We have a...

ridiculous surge of apparently 2,000 people not coordinating with us that are for a show of the cameras. I'm going to note to all of you today is January 6th. There's no debate. What happened? The President of the United States led an insurrection against a fair election to try and overturn that and, you know, report both sides of this. Well, he, you know, he said he really didn't and courts convicted 400 of them and he pardoned him. No, he did that. He did that, and that's today. And it's clear that we also saw today he implemented five states are being punished with a freezing of federal funds illegally that were appropriated by Congress, our tax dollars. So the question is about him not running for re-election, and the answer is Trump, January 6th. Dark Day in the country, national disgrace. I've been very clear about that, has nothing to do at all with the scandal in Minnesota. And he said, oh, there are these 2,000 agents showing up, not cooperating with us. It's because you won't cooperate with them, governor. They would love cooperation. You won't do it. Politically and for all sorts of reasons, you won't do it. That's the lack of cooperation. Point one. Point two, he describes this as a war being waged against Minnesota. That is the language he's using to describe. some accountability from Washington saying if you're going to let a bunch of criminals steal billions of dollars we're going to turn the spigot off for a while and figure things out he calls that the war on Minnesota how about the people coming to your state and stealing billions of dollars of hardworking taxpayers money Wouldn't that count as a war on Minnesota, on the people of Minnesota, on the hard-earned money of the people of Minnesota? Nope, it's all politics with this man and with this party. And I just wonder, will the people of Minnesota tolerate it with a new election coming up? Given the results of the governance of this ruling party now for years, but especially under this clown. Choose wisely, Minnesotans, you have not done so recently, in my view. We'll be right back. We're halfway through the Guy Venson's show. On this Tuesday, delighted to have you along, Guy Benson.com, the website, podcast, always free. We now welcome back to the airwaves, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican of Tennessee. Senator, welcome back. I'm delighted to join you. Thank you so much. I would like to first get your overall thoughts on the developments in Venezuela over the weekend. And I... When I talk to Tennesseans guy, they are so pleased that Maduro and his wife have been apprehended. They are narco-terrorists. They have committed crimes. They have been shoveling drugs into the country. He is the head of the cartel. And we have 1.3 million Americans that have lost their lives.

is people recognize the strength of President Donald Trump and the superiority of the U.S. military. And the fact that when President Donald Trump says he's going to do something, he follows through and he does it. And that there is not a timidity. from the U.S. when it comes to using our resources, whether they're diplomatic or whether you have participation like law enforcement and the military, as you saw in Venezuela, finding a way to help free people. And I think that's always such an important. point to make. The U.S. doesn't go in to take control of countries. They go in to liberate and to assist free people. And I think the goal in Venezuela, at least, is to then solidify things, stabilize things, and get to free elections. There's no appetite at all to run the country, as Trump said, in any sort of meaningful, long-term way. I think that's an important thing to note here. You, Senator, are a long-time China hawk. You and I have talked about this before on the show. And I have to think, I'd have to imagine that given the... incredible mission in iran last summer and then this very different and very impressive complex mission to exfiltrate a dictator out of his own bed in his own country to fulfill an american warrant and come after him with an indictment You'd have to imagine that Beijing and other places as well, the Kremlin, et cetera, but especially over in Beijing, I wonder if they're looking at those two major, successful, hyper-competent feats by the U.S. military. And I wonder if that is making them perhaps change their calculus about some of the decisions that they might be mulling on their own side of the world, especially given the fact that reportedly some of their... radar systems and defense systems in Venezuela were completely, apparently bypassed or incapacitated by the U.S. military on Saturday. And indeed, for China taking that one specifically guy, I think that indeed the message was sent. that if you're going to try to threaten or intimidate Taiwan or other countries with what they have done through their Belt and Road initiative and the way they have tried to push themselves forward with debt diplomacy and some of the issues that have arisen around the globe.

that indeed you were going to be facing the economic, the political, the military force and might that exist with the United States. And, of course, with China, we always think about what happens diplomatically, economically. And President Trump has been very resolute in how he has dealt with them. with tariffs and pushing on trade. They also, they have to have seen how we flew those bombers in in Iran. They have to have seen how that exercise was then converted to a mission and carried out flawlessly as General Kane. laid out when he participated in the press conference, and they were able to apprehend Maduro, and then, of course, the exceptional work of the military, treating him as a fugitive, and then getting him into that chopper out of there so that he is required to face the court. and to account for the harms that he is carried out against the American people. That has to be something that they watched and saw the determination, the precision, the strength. And then, of course, Donald Trump saying he was going to do something, giving Maduro plenty of chances to leave. Morduro would not do that. He would not deal with the cartels. And so then going in and apprehending him, that had to send a very strong message. Yep, that could alter the calculus in a significant way. Turning to domestic politics and policy here, Senator. We were talking in the last hour about immigration, closing the border, immigration enforcement. And I do not think at all that it's a coincidence that during this period of sealing the border and deporting dangerous illegal immigrant criminals, we have seen a precipitous drop nationwide in homicides. ABC News reported it was the biggest single year drop in recorded history in the United States. We have simultaneously seen a drop in drug overdoses across the United States as well. I wonder how you feel. The immigration enforcement piece affects and impacts those really heartening developments and statistics. And what's the evidence looking like in your state? I know that the feds came into Memphis. They actually had cooperation from your state, and crime dropped pretty dramatically there. We know the opioid crisis was really hitting Tennessee hard. It's not over, but it has abated a bit. What are you seeing in Tennessee? Yes, and on Memphis specifically, having the Memphis State Task Force and 20 agencies where they're working together, they're going to be close to 5,000 arrests since this started. And hundreds of gang members recovering hundreds of stolen vehicles, moving hundreds of illegal weapons off the streets.

and apprehending these gang leaders and these. criminals, these felons, murder, rape, assault, aggravated assault, a child rape. So all of these have been apprehended. Most of these cases are going in through our U.S. attorney who is there in Memphis and is doing a spectacular job of getting these cases to the point that we can actually get them into court. And then get these cases heard. So we have seen a 50% drop in crime since this started in mid-September. Now, think about that, a 50% drop. 5-0. 5-0. Wow. And it's been phenomenal. And the mayor, the police chief there, have worked with. the Department of Justice and the FBI and all the federal resources that are there. Plus, Governor Lee brought the Tennessee National Guard, the Tennessee Highway Patrol, and the Tennessee Bureau of the investigation into Memphis to work with the federal agencies. So it shows you what happens when you do that teamwork. Also, it shows you... As you have these individuals that have orders of deportation against them, if you apprehend them, if you have the ICE judges who are going to come in and prep these cases and get them ready to go to court so that you can get these individuals. deported in a good, expeditious manner. And move this through the process, it sends that message. If you are a drug dealer, a sex trafficker, if you are a gang leader, and we find you, we are going to pick you up, you are going to be locked up. You are going to find yourself in court having to face the consequences of the actions you have carried out. I would imagine that crime and public safety and drugs will be focuses of your gubernatorial campaign heading into this fall as you are running for the governor of your great state of Tennessee. But you remain in the Senate for now, so I do want to ask you about your role on the Judiciary Committee. And we've talked about this before. Are you satisfied that you are getting enough movement from the White House and the president when it comes to nominating judges? There are a bunch of vacancies, actually, and many of them have not been filled yet, no nominees at all. It strikes me as an urgent priority to keep that conveyor belt rolling.

You are so right about that, and yes, indeed. We are trying to move forward with these. Actually, this week we're going to vote on four nominees that were held over from last year. We're ahead of where the confirmations were during the Biden years, but we've still got openings. We've got people that are prepared to take a senior judgeship. They're ready. to retire and they're ready to have a replacement put in place and we are encouraging an expedient process with the judiciary committee so we can have these hearings and hold these votes. Very important to keep that all rolling, a priority in my mind. I know yours as well. Absolutely. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a Republican, our guest here on Guy Benson. Senator, happy New Year. Thank you so much. And to you also. Thank you. When we come back and update about an attack at the home of JD Vance. That's next. Always fresh. Always fair. Guy Benson.

We continue here on Guy Benson. There was a disturbing incident at the Ohio home of Vice President JD Vance. Earlier this week, someone showed up to the house and started busting windows with a hammer. No one was home. The second family has moved to D.C., but still, it's hard to imagine that this was just a random attack against the House of the sitting vice president. And now we are learning more about who the alleged perpetrator is. The New York Post reporting that the home vandal is the son of a prominent doctor and democratic donor, a young man who recently has changed his name to Julia and is apparently living now as Julia. Here's what the story says. The deranged hammer-wielding alleged vandal, accused of busting windows at Vice President JD Vance's home in Cincinnati, is reportedly the son of a prominent millionaire family and appears to be going by Julia in recent months. William is the given name of this 26-year-old, arrested early Monday after allegedly shattering four windows at JD Vance's home. Police say that he was attempting to break into that house around midnight. The vances were not home, as I mentioned. It is unclear whether this person identifies as transgender or non-binary, but has recently started posting under the name Julia. The suspect's father, who's also named William, is a successful doctor, a Harvard grad, a pediatric urologist, and he works as a professor at the University of Cincinnati, and their College of Medicine. They live in a mansion in a wealthy neighborhood, and the parents. apparently have donated thousands of dollars to Democrats in recent years, including to Kamala Harris's campaign, including to Joe Biden's campaign, backing gun control measures and that sort of thing. And I'm not blaming the parents for what this individual did. It just might indicate a political motive and a political backdrop to what... I think it's fair to at least suspect is a politically motivated attack, especially if you then layer in the apparent identity situation involving this suspect. And I think we've gotten down a path in this country where political violence has become too normalized. from incidents like this all the way up to assassinations and attempts, in my view. And this is just another example of it, not confirmed to be done for left-wing reasons yet, but there are certainly some breadcrumbs. Are there not? We will follow that story.

Final hour of Guy Benson coming up next. Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley will join us on the legal aspect of Trump's move against Maduro in Venezuela. Really interesting conversation on deck. Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. It's the happy hour here on Guy Benson on this Tuesday edition. We're so glad that you're listening. Guy Benson.com is our online home. Lots of content there every day, free of charge, including the podcast, which is on demand, also free, after the show's over, at about one hour, seven days a week, including bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. So Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. All be on the bottom line this evening as a guest around 645 Eastern Fox Business Network. Looking forward to that. A reminder that this radio hour is brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Our good friends there, a delicious product. We are big fans here. Please drink responsibly everyone. 21 plus only, of course, thelongdrink.com. Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University, a Fox News contributor and author of the book, The Indispensable Right, Free Speech in an Age of Rage, at Jonathan Turley on Social. Professor, good to have you back here. Thank you so much, Guy. Great to be with you. And it was good to see you at the studios for Fox News Sunday, and I was very interested to hear some of your legal analysis, constitutional analysis, when it comes to... the U.S. operation in Venezuela over the weekend. I know that there's a lot of discussion about legal authorities and whether a declaration of war might have been necessary. Congress wasn't informed ahead of time. Was that some sort of violation? Putting on just your constitutional hat, what do you make of the legality of this move? Well, the administration will be able to cite a prior history as well as... case decisions to support their authority on Venezuela. The move to grab Maduro is remarkably similar to what unfolded with Noriega. And so both of them claimed to be the head of state of their country that was rejected by the courts in the Noriega case. I expect they'll be rejected by the cases of the courts in the Maduro case. And by the way, Noriega was the dictator in Panama in the late 80s. That's correct. And if anything, this is a stronger case than Noriega. The evidence against Maduro is just remarkably strong. But in both cases, the United States went in, grabbed the dictators, and brought them back to the United States for prosecution. Ultimately, Noriega was since the 40 years. He served time in France, but then died in Panama prison.

So the administration can point to that case, saying that courts previously looked at all of the objections being raised by politicians and pundits and rejected them. in Noriega. So you can certainly disagree with those decisions, but what you cannot disagree with is that they do constitute current legal authority. Now, the question about going into a foreign country and whether it violates international law is a fair debate. There's arguments on both sides. The Mexican president has said this violates Article 2 of the U.N. charter. But it's really Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution that's going to govern in any review of this matter. Yeah, because in terms of international law, people cite that all the time. And I'm always confused by what it actually means. What is universally accepted international law, and who enforces it? That's right, and that's a very good question, Guy, and it's been one that has not been clearly answered. What is clear that the United States does not subscribe to the view of many of these critics, that if this violates international law, it is unlawful, and it also makes the arrest unlawful. That's not been the case of the federal courts. They don't believe that international law and practices are enforceable, jot for jot, in the United States. Moreover, international law allows for acts of self-protection as well as the enforcement of criminal laws. So there's an argument to be made even under international law, but it's not going to hold the same weight in the United States. What's interesting is that the United Nations yesterday, France objected to what we did, which I thought was sort of curious, because with Noriega, France's response was to ask if we would give Noriega to them, and they ultimately then prosecuted Noriega. So I'm a little confused between their position today and their position back then. I would also imagine that it would be a violation of international law to be a dictator who oppresses your people. commits all sorts of human rights violations and is involved with criminal regimes around the world and is shipping drugs all over the place and is stealing elections. I would guess those things are also against international law, but I'm not sure if we've heard the critics, not sure if we've heard the critics piping up about all of those violations by Maduro himself. You did mention, Professor, that the case against, in your view, against Maduro in the U.S.,

is really strong the evidence if you could just unpack that a little bit for us i think that would be helpful and then a follow-up question there are a secondary question is when it comes to the legal justification for the trump administration doing what they did over the weekend is the existence of a standing federal indictment against him dating back years is that a critical component of the legal rationale here Well, first of all, to answer the last question first, federal courts tend to look most closely at the reason a defendant is in the court, not how we got there. So courts do not go too far in inquiring as to how someone was brought back into the country. If there's a violation of federal law, that can certainly be raised. But that is not the focus of these courts. And when they focus on the underlying crimes or the allegations, I should say, the court is going to find really substantial evidence according to this superseding indictment. You know, they are saying that they have tapes of meetings in which Maduro or Maduro's son are coordinating with drug cartels. They have records of passports being given to facilitate the transfer of drugs, planes, government planes that are being used to transport these drugs, specific references by the Maduro's as to the money that they wanted to raise. One of the most damaging pieces of this prosecution could come from former Maduro lieutenants, including the head of the Venezuelan military system. He pleaded guilty to being a part of this drug cartel and implicated Maduro. He could appear, and that would be a rather devastating evidence against him. Another question on the legal side. I've seen a number of people arguing about this back and forth. Many Democrats saying this is a criminal or lawless moved by the Trump administration, lacking the legal authority. It is imperialism. Some people have said there's all sorts of pejoratives being thrown around. Some of the Democrats who are hypercritical of this were also supportive of, or at least silent about some of the decisions that were made, for example, under the Obama administration. There's the famous... droning of a U.S. citizen, who I think deserved it, by the way. I was not critical of Obama about Anwar al-Alocki, the al-Qaeda member, who happened to be a U.S. citizen. He had become an enemy combatant. Obama decided to take him out via drone. But that was a U.S. citizen being deprived of his life in one fell swoop abroad. This was a foreign dictator being taken into custody. I guess you could maybe talk about the strikes on the drug boats as maybe more akin to the drone strikes from Obama in terms of an apples to apples, at least close, if you squint, comparison. But what do you make of those arguments? Because I think it's relevant, at least, to the political debate. Well, you know, I tend to favor consultation with Congress. I've been a critic of undeclared wars my entire career, and I would lead counsel challenging the Libyan War under the Obama administration.

But we lost that case. I represented members of Congress, and we lost. And in fact, all the challenges to these types of unilateral actions by president have faced a similar outcome in the courts. So the law is on the side of the administration. It is very hypocritical to hear some of these Democrats, like Senator Kane and others, objecting and clutching their pearls over unilateral military action. Kane even said a couple days ago that the Constitution does not allow the president to initiate military action. That's entirely untrue. Of course the president. is allowed to initiate military action. The president is not allowed to declare war, but it would be a rather flimsy system if a president couldn't use military force without getting a declaration from Congress. I mean, we would last about a day as a free nation. So a lot of these members are not just forgetting history. They're forgetting basic constitutional principles. You know, in the Libyan case, Obama... not only attacked the Libyan capital, but took out armored columns expressly for the purpose of regime change. There wasn't, there was no other reason. And people in the press heralded Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state for how tough she was. There wasn't all of these Democrats, you know, having vapors over the fact that this was done without consultation or approval. Clinton also went into Bosnia and had a full-fledged war in Bosnia that he took on his own authority. So this goes back a long time. The hypocrisy is just hip-deep in Washington on this. There's also a division among Democrats. You know, just this morning, Lawrence Jay Jones asked. Senator Jeanne Shaheen on Fox and Friends, whether she opposed the capture of Maduro. And she said no. You have others like Watson Schultz coming out and saying that she supported the capture. So it's a little bit baffling. There's a group of them who have come out on the other side. You mentioned, by the way, Tim Kaine, the senator from Virginia, Hillary Clinton's former running mate. I would just note that just several months ago, he also took exception to the idea. that people argue that our constitutional and fundamental rights come from God, not from government, which was just a complete fundamental misunderstanding, I think, of our founding and our Constitution, especially coming from the guy. Yeah, I think I left about that guy, was that he actually said the nominee who simply said that he believed in natural law was no better than the mullahs of Iran and the terrorist of ISIS. The nominee had expressed the very same view of the framers of this country.

and the senator from Virginia, where many of the founders were from, including a guy named Jefferson, for example. I think it was a particularly embarrassing moment for him, given the state that he represents. Finally, on the Venezuela questions, I do want to ask you, our friend Kat Timf made a point on Gottfeld. She's a libertarian, generally very non-interventionist. And she was saying, listen, how can we go in to a country, drop bombs? take their leader from his bed, and then say, as President Trump did, that we are now running the country, and that does not qualify as waging war. I disagree with her overall about the mission. I support it. She does not. But I think that's a fair question to ask when Americans are wondering, well, if there's not a necessary declaration of war, given this fact pattern that I just described, quoting her, then what's the point of declaring war? No, it's an absolutely fair question. This is a dangerous precedent. Let's be honest about that. Senator Rand Paul has raised the same questions, and it's something that we should be able to discuss without accusing others of sedition or being traitors. The legal distinction is really the purpose. We have bombed countries for decades. We have taken out camps. We've taken out people. And the courts have said that that's within the authority of Article 2 of the Constitution, or at least the courts are not in a position to block it. But she's right. You know, this comes down to your motive, right? There is a danger that Russia and Iran and China will make the same claims. What we can cite to here is a criminal indictment. He's not being taken out. He's not being captured. for the purpose of changing the regime technically, he was captured to stand trial. He's not the head of a nation. I mean, that's a very critical issue here. Right, he stole elections as a dictator or was a dictator. Yeah, 50 countries did not recognize him. He lost the election. Just because he said, I am the head of a dictator because I'm surrounded by Cuban security doesn't meet any definition under international law that I'm aware of. Before I let you go on a separate matter, and we've talked about this scandal now for a number of weeks in Minnesota, and you had a post on X at Jonathan Turley, where you wrote, I've been a longtime critic of Governor Walls, including the massive fraud that appears to have occurred under his watch. However, I do not see any evidence that would suggest he is criminally culpable for his lack of leadership. I think this is an important question just to briefly address, because... If there is evidence that he was involved in this in any way, by all means, I am for criminal accountability for anyone. But if this was just extremely poor decision-making at the political level, I think that there should be very severe political consequences for him and his party. We see he's not running for reelection. That is different than trying to figure out some sort of indictment for the governor. And in an age of lawfare, I think it's important to kind of lay down that marker. If you want to have the last word on that. Well, I agree with you, Guy, that, you know, conservatives need to be consistent with their underlying principles. You know, they won an election, this president won an election on a rejection of lawfare. You can't just...

Friddle that away, trigger that away just because you have the power, the ability to use law fair. If there's evidence that Walt's specifically intended and acted to help out some fraudulent scheme, then of course there could be prosecution. There's zero evidence of that so far. What we've seen is a complete failure of leadership. That is not a criminal matter. And I really do think that... People of good faith have to say, look, enough with this. Don't say that he could be prosecuted until you can show some real evidence of a crime. And there are plenty of people who are culpable criminally that you can go after as a priority on that front. Jonathan Turley, law professor, constitutional law professor at GW University, Fox News contributor, bestselling author. Professor, really appreciate your time as always. Thank you. Always a pleasure guy. Thank you. We will be right back after this very short break. Guy Benson. More next. It's the happy hour here on Guy Benson. We're glad you're listening. You know that if you're a long-time listener, we take this program on the road once a year. when we are blessed to do so, to the Hoover Institution at Stanford. And they are great to us, their wonderful hosts. Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State, runs that place. And they have many really impressive people, including... Victor Davis Hansen, one of our favorites. We love having him on this show. He has been ill recently. I didn't know many details, but just a few days ago, Dr. Rice posted this on her Twitter or X account, and I just want to relay this to our audience because he is a familiar voice here. She wrote, please find an update from my dear friend and colleague, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson. He remains in our prayers. Now quoting from VDH himself. I wanted to share a brief health update. I recently underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor and am now recovering. I'm doing well and hopeful as I move forward. Thank you for the many messages of support and prayers. They truly mean more than I can say. As I focus on recovery, I may not be able to respond to everyone, but please know how grateful I am, end quote, signed Victor Davis Hanson. A great historian, a brilliant commentator, someone that we have really cherished getting to know here, and we are praying for VDAH. And if you are inclined to do the same, we encourage you to do so. Get well. Beat This Thing, VDH. Guy Benson is back with more after this.

Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. In our first hour today, Byron York, my colleague here at Fox News and at the Washington Examiner, he joined the program. Our focus was on immigration. Here's part of that discussion. Martha McCallum, our colleague, on the story yesterday on Fox News Channel, she had an interview with Jason Crow, who is a military veteran. He's a Democrat from Colorado. And the beginning of the interview... sounded like this where Crow was worried about a quagmire cut 13. But we've never known it, but the question is whether or not do you get around to a point where you actually take some action or do you just talk about it since 1989? as we've just heard many prominent Democrats do. The Maduro regime, as it was constructed, exists almost in its entirety as we sit here today in Venezuela. So they should have taken out the whole thing? No, I'm not saying that at all. So we should take out no one. What I'm saying is I don't believe it's in our immediate interests that Americans want us to be engaged in another nation building, Quagmire, like we have done for 20 years. So, Byron, that's the beginning, or near the beginning of this exchange, where he sounds. At first, like, disappointed that it wasn't a complete uprooting of the regime overnight. Then he says, seconds later, that the American people don't want us to be engaged in another nation-building quagmire with all these boots on the ground there for a long period of time. Then later, just moments later in the interview, comes cut 14. Also, you've got Iran, China, Cuba. A lot of bad actors are using it as a forward operating base against the United States. Absolutely, which is part of the problem because you just said we left nobody on the ground. So the Cubans are still there. You said you don't want anyone on the ground. The mistake was that we didn't take out all of the other heads of operation, but you didn't want us to take out Maduro in the first place. So, Byron, if I'm just tracking this man for two minutes. He lamented the fact that the regime wasn't changed. Then he said that what we don't want is a nation-building quagmire. And then he said the problem is that we didn't leave people on the ground to deal with all the foreign bad actors that have infiltrated Venezuela. It's really hard, I think, to interpret that mess as anything other than we are going to find ways to be mad about this because it's Trump. My feeling is... If you've always opposed doing something like this, oppose it now that Donald Trump has done it. Yes. But if you've always been in favor of doing something like this, don't oppose it now that Donald Trump has done it. If you could just stick to that, I think you'd be fine. And I think a lot of Democrats, like Crow, look absolutely foolish, having called for this, and the Biden administration, having put a $25 million reward on Maduro's head, I think it just looks silly and certainly unsurious to do something like this after the president takes action, which was, as we've said many times, really well done.

Turning now to immigration here at home. And by the way, part of the reason that we have extra interest in Venezuela is because of what the Venezuelan regime exported to the United States in terms of chaos and criminality through the southern border. Right. So the Democrats were completely fine. In fact, I saw DHS, the official DHS Twitter handle, had made... a very snarky point, but unfortunately, I think it's a fair one. With all the Democrats up in arms about Maduro, DHS tweeted, oh, so the Democrats have finally found a Venezuelan criminal they don't want in the United States. And like, it's a pretty, it's a pretty funny joke to an extent. But it's also rather sad because there's some truth to it. And it points to a policy incoherence where they, the Venezuelans, set a bunch of their worst intentionally to the U.S. border. And we've seen their crimes now victimizing Americans across the country. That was based on the policies of the Biden-Harris Democratic administration. they've sealed the border, the Trump people have, in very short order, and the Democrats are opposing tooth and nail virtually any deportation. Like, if they're willing to defend Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia, they'll defend anyone, and they are, and then you go and you take out Maduro, and a lot of them have been agitating for that sort of thing for a long time, and they're upset with that. It's just sort of like a lose-lose proposition if it's Trump, and I think most Americans will see that for what it is, which is just this... very like brain dead, knee-jerk, partisan move as opposed to anything serious, anything principled, anything thoughtful. But again, as we talk now about what's happening in the United States vis-a-vis immigration, there was a story that came out over the holidays. And I made sure to highlight it on... The Five and on Fox and Friends, I want to make sure we do so here as well. The Washington Examiner got exclusive data from ICE Byron, looking back to January 20th, 2025. So the day Trump was inaugurated up until mid-December of 2025. So almost the first year of the second Trump administration. And there were roughly 600,000 illegal immigrants who were arrested by ICE during that period based on these stats. And again, according to the ICE data reported by the examiner, roughly 7 in 10, roughly 70% of those arrests were illegal immigrants with a criminal history in the United States. That strikes me as a very impressive batting average and completely antithetical to the line that we hear from Democrats in the media all the time that the administration isn't actually pursuing the worst of the worst. 70% with a criminal history sounds. like a pretty damn good job to me. And that's exactly what the administration has been saying. First, on the 600,000 thing, before the administration took office during the transition, I talked to some people who were very experienced in the immigration system, had worked in the immigration system.

And they fully supported what Trump was going to do. And they said, you know, if you really put the pedal to the metal, you can probably deport about 400,000 people in a year. And so 600,000 is really, really something. And by the way, In addition to that is the estimated 1.9 million who have self-deported in large part because of the example of all the deportation. So the administration is saying 2.5 million people who are here illegally left in the first year of President Trump's transfer. So either forcibly or on their own accord. An extraordinary record. And as far as the criminal records are concerned, you're right. I mean, how many stories have you seen? ICE picked up. A person who's done absolutely nothing wrong has no record at all and they're, you know, being thrown into deportation hell. Most of the people have a criminal record. Now, that goes beyond, and I'm sure some of your listeners are saying, but wait a minute, what about crossing illegally into the United States? I mean, anybody who crossed illegally into the United States. began their time in this country with a crime. Now, the other type are the people who actually come here illegally on a visa and then overstay that visa, and so they were here illegally. But they didn't arrive illegally. But if you arrived illegally, you started your time in the United States with a crime, and that's just all there is to it. And I think certainly with people who came during the Biden influx, that is, they've been here a very, very short time. The administration has to set. an example, which is if you come illegally into the United States, there are going to be consequences like you don't get to stay. My full interview with Byron York, available online at Guy Benson.com, part of the free podcast every day on demand, no charge at all, Guy Benson.com, Fox News, podcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, Cookie is a very, very bitter New York Jets fan right now. She's especially upset with one person. We'll delve into that on the other side. For the full interview and more, go to Guy Benson.com.

it's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on, so I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Home Stretch on this Tuesday. Getting ready for Fox Business Network, I'll be on the bottom line toward the end of the 6 p.m. hour coming up, Eastern Time Zone. Shortly after this program ends, Guy Benson.com here, of course. Podcasts always free. So the last couple of nights, I have witnessed some wild ends to football games. Last night, the FCS championship game was on TV. It was Montana State and Illinois State, if I'm not mistaken. And it was a back and forth affair, tied at the end of regulation, went to overtime, a crazy end to regulation, first of all. And then a crazy overtime, a blocked field goal at the end of the game, then a blocked extra point that doomed Illinois State, a fourth down and long, miracle-style touchdown play to effectively win the game by one point. by Montana State, big crowd in Nashville watching the game, and I had very little investment in either team or program or the outcome. I just wanted excitement, and we got it in spades in that game. Fantastic heart-pounding football game. As someone, again, who was like an impartial observer, didn't have rooting interests really at all. I couldn't turn it off. And it reminded me of the final minutes of Sunday night football on the NFL side two nights ago. I just found myself watching the Ravens at the Steelers with playoff implications, not, again, having very strong feelings about either team. And it was a bonkers end to the game, including... A game-winning field goal being missed by Baltimore, wide-right, benefiting the Pittsburgh Steelers, propelling them into the playoffs. Here was Mike Tariko on the call on NBC Cup 35. Snapgood. The kick is no good. It is wide right. And the Steelers are the champions of the North. So Steelers fans going nuts in Pittsburgh there, as you could hear. I think the expectation was it wasn't that long of a field goal. NFL kickers generally much more reliable than college kickers, which is a bit of a meme unto itself. And that game was just a heavyweight battle with huge blows back and forth. And you kept wondering, what's the next shoe to drop? And then the shoe kept dropping. Back and forth they went culminating in that missed field goal. And the Steelers. As you heard there, won the division, and the playoffs now await with, I know a lot of NFL fans always anticipating with great excitement, wildcard weekend coming up. One of the people who was happiest, big smile on his face coming off the field after that Steelers win was their quarterback, Aaron Rogers, who for a long time was known on this program, according to Cookie, as, quote, cutie cute.

She became a Jets fan for some reason, partially because of him, was a huge fan of Aaron Rogers, had a big crush on Aaron Rogers. Things did not work out for him and the Jets because things never work out for the New York Jets. And now here he is, playoff bound at his age. He was leading his team to victory on the field. And, Christine, it seems like you are pretty bent out of shape about it. I am upset, but I think... Gosh, this is just, it's just sad. It just gets worse and worse as the football season goes on. But it's over now for you. It's over. It's been over. And we will look forward to next year. And I'm sure I'll make some sort of bet. But I think. You know, my anger is at Aaron Rogers and I feel like it's misdirected. You know, when you get like angry at someone, they're like, wait, that's your problem. Like you did that, not me. It's a Jets problem. It's a Jets problem. And it really took me this long and to see Aaron make the playoffs. I said, oh, wait a second. This is the Jets. Yeah, you're projecting anger and frustration onto him when, in fact, it's gangrene that is the problem here. And I just want to point out a few things about the Jets who finished. Am I correct? Three and 14. Was that the final record? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So I saw a statistic that, and Dylan, you can fact check me on this because I know you're an NFL fan. I think I saw a stat that the New York Jets just became... Am I right to say the only team in NFL history to go an entire football season without making a single interception on defense all year? That is correct. I think the previous record holder was like 14 games in a row. But no, the Jats went the whole season without intercepting the ball defensively and just a sprinkle of irony on top. Their head coach, Aaron Glenn, is a former cornerback. So the cornerbacks team had no picks this year. Zero picks. So they allowed all the touchdowns and none. of the interceptions on their side of the ledger. So that is the final word on the New York Jets season. And, Christine, I have to tell you, there was a thought that I had in the back of my head because we made the bet long ago that you lost, which is why your husband Bobby will be our guest on this show this year. And we can ask him whatever we want, and you actually won't be present for that. In any case, the reason... that I won the bet is because you made a terrible bet, that the Jets were going to make the playoffs, and I felt confident that they would not, so you lost the bet. One of the wagers that I almost thought about making, and if you had proposed it, I think I would have taken it in a heartbeat.

was I'm technically a Giants fan. I'm much more into college football in Northwestern. Very excited that we won our bowl game the day after Christmas, really a romping in Detroit. Love to see that from the Wildcats winning season. Chip Kelly coming on board with a brand new offensive staff. Chip Kelly is offensive coordinator. Super excited in Wildcat land. But on the NFL side, I'm a Giants fan. I don't really care that much, but I am a Giants fan. And if you would ask me during our bet-making era right before the football season, will the Giants have a better record than the Jets? And that was the straight-up bet. I would have taken that in a split second, and that would have been an awfully close outcome. Because the Giants ended up for some reason. winning the last two games of the season. I don't know what we're doing in terms of draft picks. Like, why? Why win these games? Please don't, but they did. So they ended up at 4 and 13, just barely better than the Jets. But for a while there, it looked like the Jets might actually have as many wins, if not more, than the Giants. So I had sort of these heart palpitations based on the potential of losing a bet that I didn't even make with you. But if you had proposed it beginning of the year... I would have said yes, and it would have been a nail-biter all the way down to the very last week of the season. I just want to point that out. Well, I'm super bummed because obviously I don't think I would have thought about making that bet, but I wish maybe Dylan or Justin or even you had proposed it. So I had some idea of what that meant, but I don't know. I really felt confident. about the Jets and it's just getting worse and worse each year. So I'm not sure what's going to happen next year. I actually not sure if I'm even going to make a bet. But can I just say this one thing? Yes. For any single people out there. I read this thing on Instagram that said, if you're dating and you want yourself a loyal man, I guess or woman, date a Jets fan. Do you want to know why? Because they will, like, for richer or for poorer, sickness and in health. Yes. They're sticking around. No matter what. It's like that kid, the viral kid saying how much he hated the team. He's like, I'll always be a Jets fan, but I hate this team. Yes. Just dead behind the eyes as he walked away. That is Jets fandom, and I'm sure in a number of months we'll be having the conversation, and you'll have some new reason to be excited, and we'll make a bet, and there'll be some new reason for you to lose the bet and be let down next season, but there's always next year. The playoffs. getting underway soon, including a bunch of games on Fox, I have to ask you, Christine, now that you've had this epiphany about your own emotions and how they're being projected onto Aaron Rogers, and it really is something that should be directed at your own team, does that mean that you'll be rooting for your cutie cute in the playoffs or no? No, no. Is he like an X, like an embittered? Ex situation? Yeah, I thought he was an ex that, like, I just really despised. Now it's tough because he's that ex that, like, you wanted him to stay and he didn't and you're happy for him, but you're not. Yeah. You know, so... Do you text him when you're drunk?

Can you imagine if I had his number? Oh, I don't, you know what? We're not even going to contemplate that. We're going to leave it there. We're ending the segment because we're out of time anyway. I'm off to TV. Back here on the radio, 21 hours from right now. Looking forward to that, everyone. We'll talk to you about it. Listen to the show ad free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.