Donald Trump admits to crimes and delivers a deranged speech
I requested an analysis from OpenAI of the transcript of Donald Trump's statements. The conclusions are unequivocal: these statements, if put into practice, constitute crimes and serious violations of international law that should be prosecuted before an international court.
No country can be safe when the rule of law is abandoned. There can be no peace or laws when the leader of the United States is willing to violate the Constitution, break international law, and act without any legal constraints. Such a world is headed straight for chaos.
I hope that all nations committed to law, sovereignty, and peace will unite to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This is the result.
1. Claim: Maduro sent terrorist organizations to Colorado, Washington DC, Memphis, New Orleans, and Los Angeles
❌ Factually false
There is no evidence—neither public nor classified—that:
The Venezuelan State
Nicolás Maduro personally
Or some Venezuelan government agency
has directed, financed or commanded criminal organizations to operate within the United States.
What does exist:
Criminal gangs with members of Venezuelan origin (such as the Tren de Aragua)
Crime associated with migration processes, a phenomenon that exists with many countries
What does not exist:
Command and control links
State sponsorship
Orders from Caracas
Intelligence intercepts that prove state direction
⚖️ Legal standard:
For a State to be responsible, there must be effective control (Nicaragua case, ICJ).
This standard is not met at all .
➡️ Conclusion: Fabrication by attribution: blaming a foreign leader for crimes he does not control.
2. Claim: Maduro carried out operations “at 10,000 miles” against the U.S.
❌ Factually false
It does not exist:
Venezuelan expeditionary force
Intelligence operation
Military scope
Logistical capacity
Venezuela cannot project power outside its region, much less within US cities.
➡️ Conclusion: Pure rhetorical invention.
3. Claim: Maduro “emptied prisons and asylums” and sent criminals to the U.S.
❌ Factually false
This is a recycled story previously used against:
Cuba (Mariel)
Haiti
Mexico
Central America
There is no evidence of:
Prison releases linked to migration
State-organized criminal export
Official Venezuelan policies of that type
Even DHS reports do not support this narrative.
➡️ Conclusion: Classic scapegoat myth to justify the use of force.
4. Claim: Each drug ship kills “25,000 people”
❌ Factually false
This is a statistical absurdity.
Drug-induced harm is diffuse and multicausal.
Attributing deaths requires epidemiological analysis
No shipment can be assigned to a specific number of deaths.
➡️ Conclusion: Propaganda mathematics.
5. Claim: Maduro stole US oil assets
❌ Factually false (and completely reversed)
What really happened:
Venezuela nationalized assets within its own territory (legal under international law)
The United States confiscated CITGO , refineries, ships, accounts, and profits
Trump stole Venezuelan assets through illegal unilateral measures
➡️ Conclusion: Projection and investment of reality.
6. Claim: The U.S. will “administer Venezuela” and sell its oil
❌ Legally false — and the most serious claim
This is an explicit admission of an intention to colonize without:
Declaration of war
Occupation
UN Mandate
Security Council Authorization
Viola:
Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter
The right to self-determination
The prohibition of wars of aggression
⚠️ This constitutes looting , a war crime.
➡️ Conclusion: Illegal by definition.
7. Justification under the Monroe Doctrine
❌ Legally false
It is not international law
It does not authorize war, kidnapping, or regime change.
The UN Charter completely invalidates it
➡️ Conclusion: Empty symbolism.
8. “Peace, freedom and justice”
❌ Logically false
It can't be done:
Kidnapping a head of state
Bombing a capital city
Confiscate resources
self-proclaimed ruler
…and call it “peace”.
➡️ Conclusion: Orwellian language.
9. Capture without war = international kidnapping
Violations:
Sovereignty
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
customary international law
10. Maduro leads gangs in the U.S.
❌ Structural falsehood
This is a classic outsourcing story :
There are criminal gangs → therefore, a foreign leader controls them.
There is no evidence of a chain of command .
There is no proof of state direction .
There are no interceptions .
There are no legal accusations that demonstrate a state link.
Under international law :
Criminal acts by nationals ≠ acts of the State.
Even proven criminals ≠ casus belli .
This argument would immediately collapse in any international court.
11. Constitutional violations (US side)
Even internally, this discourse admits violations of:
Article I (Congress's war powers)
Due process
Separation of powers
Prohibition of undeclared wars
Prohibition of executive seizure of foreign assets
A US president cannot legally do any of this unilaterally .
12. “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned”
❌ This is not law — it is an imperial declaration
It does not exist:
Legal doctrine
Treaty
International standard
that grants the U.S. “dominance” over the Western Hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823):
It was a unilateral political declaration.
Addressed to European colonial powers
Issued before modern international law existed
Does not authorize:
Military invasions
Regime changes
Resource control
Government of other nations
Since 1945, the UN Charter has nullified all unilateral doctrines .
➡️ What Trump is claiming is not a security policy , but a claim to a sphere of influence , explicitly rejected after World War II.
This is exactly the logic used by:
Imperial Japan
Nazi Germany
Tsarist and Soviet Russia
That's why it's illegal.
13. “Protecting trade, territory and resources… iron laws of global power”
❌ Direct rejection of the post-1945 legal order
This language is pre-UN, pre-Nuremberg, pre-Geneva .
After World War II, the world explicitly rejected:
Wars for resources
Territorial conquest
“Might makes right”
Trump openly states:
Power comes from controlling the resources of other peoples.
That is exactly what international law defines as aggression .
⚖️ Under international law:
The resources belong to the people of the territory.
Even occupying powers are temporary custodians
Permanent exploitation = plunder (war crime)
➡️ This is not ignorance: it is a deliberate return to the imperial logic of the 19th century .
14. “We will retain all military options until U.S. demands are met.”
❌ Illegal coercion and collective punishment
Central problem:
The U.S. has no legal authority to issue “demands” to Venezuela
Threatening with force to extract compliance is illegal
According to the UN Charter:
Force can only be used for:
Self-defense against an armed attack
Security Council Authorization
None of that exists here.
➡️ This statement is an open threat of continued violence , which in itself violates international law .
15. “Every political or military leader must understand that what happened to Maduro could happen to them.”
❌ Explicit threat of extrajudicial violence
This statement is extremely serious .
It constitutes:
Threat of murder or kidnapping
Collective intimidation of the leadership of a sovereign state
Violation of the prohibition against terrorizing civilian populations
In international law, this means:
State Terror
Illegal coercion
Violation of sovereignty
No rhetoric of “justice” makes it legal.
16. “People are free” / “attack on sovereignty in the name of justice”
❌ Orwellian contradiction
It can't be done:
Attack sovereignty
Impose embargoes
Threaten forcefully
Declare control of resources
To claim the right to govern
…and simultaneously talk about “freedom”.
Freedom requires:
Self-determination
Consent
Venezuelan political agency
None of that exists here.
This is colonial language , not liberating.
17. “The oil embargo remains / the navy remains ”
❌ Strategic contradiction
Trump claims:
Venezuela is “free”
Maduro “is no longer here”
But also:
The embargo continues
The navy remains
Military options continue
If Venezuela were truly “free”:
There would be no embargo
There would be no navy
There would be no threats.
➡️ This reveals the truth:
Coercion for control, not liberation.
18. The most revealing phrase
“Last night I witnessed one of the most precise attacks against sovereignty… an attack for justice.”
“Last night I witnessed one of the most precise attacks against sovereignty… an attack for justice.”
This sentence is devastating .
It cannot exist:
An “attack on sovereignty”
Make it legal
Without UN authorization
Here he accidentally admits to the crime while trying to praise it.
10–18. Hemispheric domination, military threats, coercion, embargo, and explicit admission of “attack on sovereignty”
All of this constitutes:
State terror
Illegal coercion
Rejection of the post-1945 legal order
WHAT THIS REALLY IS
Trump's speech is not a legal justification .
It is a post-hoc narrative designed to:
Emotionally justifying aggression
Dehumanize the target
To confuse public opinion
Standardize resource control
➡️ This is classic regime change rhetoric , not law-based governance.
FINAL CLARITY
Sending troops does not grant control over the destiny of a nation .
Without:
Legitimate authority
Consent
Institutions
International recognition
Power collapses into chaos.
Legally, historically, and factually, Trump is wrong.
What he does is lie to fabricate justifications, not describe reality.
