Transcript

🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 31 min · 6,073 words · 82 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 29, 2026 (31 min, about 6,073 words). It mentions 11 people, works and ideas, including Marco Rubio, Venezuela, Donald Trump, Aliens Act, Climate Change.

What this episode is about

Marco Rubio faced intense scrutiny during a Senate hearing, where he struggled to respond to aggressive cross-examination from Democratic senators, particularly around the implications of the President’s invocation of the wartime Alien Enemies Act in relation to Venezuela. His nervousness was evident as he frequently reached for water, and concerns were raised about potential perjury regarding his statements on the state of war with Venezuela.

Key takeaways

  • Under pressure, Rubio turned to H20; hydration became his nervous habit instead of coherent responses.
  • When asked to clarify, Rubio instead led a masterclass in verbal gymnastics—without a safety net.
  • Democratic Senators grilled Rubio like a chef at a barbecue; the sizzle of his contradictions was palpable.
  • Rubio's claims about Trump's communications with oil executives fell flatter than a two-day-old soda.
  • The only 'regime change' Rubio ruled out was his own—survival instincts kicked in under Senate interrogation.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Venezuela, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Aliens Act
  2. – 10:00: Donald Trump, Juan Orlando Hernandez, Marco Rubio, Venezuela
  3. – 15:00: Venezuela, Climate Change, Donald Trump
  4. – 20:00: Donald Trump, Venezuela, Tim Kaine, Marco Rubio
  5. – 25:00: Marco Rubio, Venezuela, Senator Rand Paul, Donald Trump
  6. – 30:00: Venezuela, Tim Kaine
  7. – 31:08: Marco Rubio

Notable quotes from "🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"

  • What went down at this hearing. First, you have Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth cross-examining Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, about Donald Trump invoking the wartime…
    about Marco Rubio · at
  • Okay. The Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power, our Supreme Court. And before now, the Alien Enemies Act was only invoked during the War of 1812, World.
    about Aliens Act · at
  • Will you make a public commitment today to rule out US regime change in Cuba?
    about Cuba · at
  • Yeah. But that's statutory. The Helms Burton Act, the US embargo on Cuba is codified. It was codified in law and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo.
    about Venezuela · at
  • Now, President Trump has said publicly that he had communications with folks from the oil industry about going into Venezuela before anyone here in Congress was notified. Mr. Mr. Secretary, simple.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • And let me just say something about the president's recent comments about NATO allies. When I served in Iraq, there were Polish forces there with us.
    about Senator Tammy Duckworth · at
  • Because this is no longer about the distant future. This is urgent and it's happening right now. A major new report warns that the environmental crisis is arriving decades…
    about Climate Change · at
  • Maybe don't just get to kill and murder people. But Tim Kaine says that the Trump regime has universally declared everything relating to these war crimes to be confidential so that we can't have public hearings on it, which is.
    about Tim Kaine · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Marco Rubio — Person · Primary referenced witness (Secretary of State) being questioned in Senate hearing · 9 mentions · first at
    Central figure in the episode; the transcript focuses on senators cross-examining Rubio about Trump administration actions (Venezuela, Alien Enemies Act, NATO comments, oil funds) and alleges he lied/perjured himself.
  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced decision-maker (President) whose actions/policies are under scrutiny · 12 mentions · first at
    Rubio and multiple senators repeatedly reference Trump as the authority behind the Alien Enemies Act invocation, Venezuela operation, NATO remarks, and the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández.
  • Senator Tammy Duckworth — Person · Referenced senator conducting cross-examination · 1 mention · first at
    Highlighted as a leading Democratic questioner pressing Rubio on the Alien Enemies Act/‘war’ framing and on Trump’s NATO comments; she also references her military service to rebut claims about allies.
  • Tim Kaine — Person · Referenced senator conducting cross-examination and closing critique · 4 mentions · first at
    Appears questioning Rubio about Trump confusing Iceland/Greenland and later criticizing secrecy/classification around the Venezuela operation and alleged strikes at sea.
  • Senator Rand Paul — Person · Referenced senator challenging legality/war-powers rationale · 2 mentions · first at
    Portrayed pressing Rubio on constitutional war powers and the logic of calling an operation a ‘law enforcement’ action rather than war, using hypotheticals about kidnapping a U.S. president.
    But I think we're in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capital, blockading a country, and removing elected officials. And we certainly.
  • Juan Orlando Hernandez — Person · Referenced former head of state used as hypocrisy/credibility example · 2 mentions · first at
    Raised by Senator Rosen as a comparator to Maduro: the transcript claims Trump pardoned Hernández after a U.S. conviction for large-scale cocaine trafficking, and Rubio is pressed to acknowledge the conviction.
    Ever existed. Donald Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. And so Senator Rosen said, Isn't it true that Hernandez was somebody who trafficked drugs into the United States and…

Concepts & topics

  • Aliens Act — Concept · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed in the context of its invocation by the president and its implications for US-Venezuela relations.
  • Climate Change — Concept · Core topic · 4 mentions · first at
    Highlighted as an urgent environmental crisis with immediate impacts globally.
  • NATO — Concept · Key argument · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed in relation to US foreign policy, military alliances, and the sacrifices of NATO allies.
    And let me just say something about the president's recent comments about NATO allies. When I served in Iraq, there were Polish forces there with us.

Places & events

  • Venezuela — Place · Setting · 16 mentions · first at
    Central to discussions about US foreign policy, the Aliens Act, and oil money management.
  • Cuba — Place · Setting · 5 mentions
    Mentioned in discussions about potential US regime change and foreign policy strategies.

Full transcript with timestamps

Marco Rubio had a terrible day on Capitol Hill where he appeared at a hearing as a witness before the United States Senate. Rubio folded under the aggressive cross-examination by senators, particularly the Democratic senators led the way. Democratic senators like Duckworth and Kaine and Shots and Rosen and others were grilling the Secretary of State. He got very nervous at times and his nervous habit is to reach for the water bottle and start chugging it. You saw that happen multiple times. Also, Marco Rubio appears to have engaged in numerous instances of perjury for which he should be held accountable. I'll let you form your own opinions if he completely lied the way I formed my opinion that he completely lied. So, let me show you what went down at this hearing. First, you have Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth cross-examining Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, about Donald Trump invoking the wartime Aliens Act. And

Duckworth says, "So, are we at war, yes or no, with Venezuela? Do you believe that's an act of war?" Let's play this clip.

Um, thank you. Uh, Mr. Secretary, last March, the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a notorious wartime law last used for Japanese internment. He said that he was responding to the Maduro regime's supposed invasion or other acts of war against the United States. But in recent weeks, you, the Department of Justice, and our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said that we are not at war with Venezuela. Secretary Rubio, if that is true, and we are not at war with with Venezuela, will you advise the president to resend his invocation of the wartime Alien Enemies Act?

Well, that was a mechanism to remove people from our country that prevent grave danger. So, for example, we know for a fact that Train Aua is a very dangerous gang. In fact, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I may have been the first member of Congress.

This is a wartime act, Mr. Secretary. Well, are we at are we currently at war with Venezuela?

No, we're not in the state of war in Venezuela. Okay. The Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power, our Supreme Court. And before now, the Alien Enemies Act was only invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, World War II, when it was used to intern thousands of innocent civilians. Are you really arguing that the president should be able to wield an internment law?

No, no, no, but we're talking about two separate things here. So, you're talking about the state of Venezuela or are describing the regime and we're talking about No, no, but what the president

invoke the alien enemy. I know, but let me be clear with you. No but next you have Democratic Senator Shots say, "So is the next plan by the Trump regime to do regime change in Cuba just so the American people have peace of mind. Can you rule out another regime change?" And watch what Rubio says here. Play this clip.

Um you're just going to move on to a couple of other issues. your comments um that Havana should be concerned about the Maduro operation is fueling speculation that this administration will turn its sights to Cuba next. Will you make a public commitment today to rule out US regime change in Cuba?

Regime change? Yes. Oh, no. I think we would love to see the regime there change. We would like to That doesn't mean that we're going to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There's no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an auto autocratic regime. But you know what we mean by regime change? We don't mean I wish someone else were in charge. When we talk about regime change, we're talking about using the power of the United States, usually kinetic power, but often other kinds of uh coercion. And and and and I'm not even saying that that's always not in our interest. I'm just saying I'm not asking you whether we would prefer a different uh kind of government. I'm asking whether you are trying to precipitate the fall of the current regime.

Yeah. But that's statutory. The Helms Burton Act, the US embargo on Cuba is is codified. It was codified in law and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo.

Okay. Um, next you have Democratic Senator Van Holland grilling Marco Rubio about whether or not Trump informed oil executives about the invasion of Venezuela before it took place. As Donald Trump publicly stated that he told the oil executives before Congress. Rubio says that never happened. Donald Trump didn't say that. Okay. Well, we actually have tape of Donald Trump saying that he informed the oils executives before he informed Congress. But watch Rubio lie. As I said, this is why I believe Rubio's been engaging in perjury. Here, play this clip.

Now, President Trump has said publicly that he had communications with folks from the oil industry about going into Venezuela before anyone here in Congress was notified. Mr. Mr. Secretary, simple yes or no question. Were you with President Trump during any of those conversations he had with with people with oil interests in Venezuela about the possibility of deposing Maduro?

That that's not a simple yes or no question, but I can I can answer it quickly. And that is the president always elicits opinions from all sorts of people, including, for example, Chevron has an active license in Venezuela. They operate in Venezuela. They they've been doing so even when the sanctions were in place. So of course you would ask Chevron, what is your opinion of Deli Rodriguez is what are your opinion of their economy and of their prospect? But the notion that somehow the president authorized this challenge at the urging of oil executives is absurd. That never happened.

Mr. Secretary, I'm I'm asking whether you were with the president. That never happened. I couldn't be with him because it never happened. This this the oil executives were not involved whatsoever in any of the planning on this matter. Did the president as he said publicly inform them about the US operations?

I think those all of those executives learned about this operation the same time everybody else did.

Well, President Trump has said the opposite in public. No, no, no. Yes, he has. I mean, he he said it. I think it was aboard Air Force One on an airplane. It's on public record. You can take a look. Look. Next, you have Democratic Senator Duckworth talk about her experience as a soldier serving in Iraq alongside our NATO allies. And she grills Marco Rubio here about Donald Trump's statements that our NATO allies were not fighting with American soldiers in Afghanistan and how hateful and harmful that is to our relationship with our allies given the ultimate sacrifices our NATO allies made for the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Here, play this clip. And let me just say something about the president's recent comments about NATO allies. When I served in Iraq,

there were Polish forces there with us. There were British forces there with us. There were Spanish forces there with us. I personally landed in Elia Espa which came under direct attack by insurgents. Polish troops who have worked with the Illinois military with the Illinois National Guard for 30 years died in Afghanistan. Mr. Secretary, the president wants NATO. Our NATO allies have stood beside us. He wants our allies to have more. We need to maintain the strength of that alliance. Good times. Not making much progress here. Uh

well, let me just say the president just wants our allies to have more capabilities to to be involved in operations like that, god forbid, in the future if necessary. That's not an reason that they stayed a little behind and they certainly did not come to our defense.

Well, not every country in Europe, not every country in NATO participated in those missions.

Denmark suffered some of the greatest military casualty. There's no doubt that many of our allies have stepped forward and provided assistance to us and there are many others who simply don't have the capability to do it now or in the future.

That's not what the president said. was pointing to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

You see how squirmy Rubio is? It's lie after lie after lie from Rubio. Next, Democratic Senator Rosen cross-examines Rubio about Juan Orlando Hernandez and asks Rubio a very basic question. Juan Orlando Hernandez is one of the biggest drug traffickers, narot terrorists that ever existed. Donald Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. And so Senator Rosen said, "Isn't it true that Hernandez was somebody who uh trafficked drugs into the United States and killed people?" He was convicted of that in the United States in federal court proceedings. So, will Rubio even admit to that? No, he won't because he lies about everything.

Watch Rubio squirm here. Play this clip. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and uh, thank you, Secretary Rubio, uh, for being here. I'm going to get right into it because I want to build on Senator Van Golland's line of questioning. President Trump pardoned the former Honduran president after he was convicted of tra trafficking roughly 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Cocaine that contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans year after year. Yet, the president and his cabinet authorized a military operation to capture Nicholas Maduro in order to arrest him for virtually the same crime. So, yes or no? cuz I have a bunch of questions here. To the best of your knowledge, was Hernandez convicted of trafficking approximately 400 tons of cocaine into the United States?

I'm not involved in the pardon process. I can tell you I'm just Yeah, but I don't do Yes or no. That's I don't play games. This is not a game show.

Do you know he was he Okay. So, I'm just going to tell you he So, I can answer your question because I know what you're getting at, but go ahead.

Was convicted? I know the president felt that he was unfairly treated. I I can't but I can't give you much insight because I'm not involved in the pardon process. Would you not concede? Can you not understand how the American people and how the world are clearly going to be frustrated by the hypocrisy of this when one man is convicted and pardoned and another man captured and how it undermines the United States credibility on the world stage?

But the difference is that again I can't opine on the specifics of his case because I wasn't involved in the pardon. But he was not a sitting office holder. He was not even the president of Honduras when that decision was made either to convict him. Uh the difference between him and Nicholas Maduro is he was actively engaged in narot trafficking. It was an ongoing endeavor.

I I think it does undermine our credibility. But I'm going to move on to some foreign.

Now you have Democratic Senator Shots. talk about and cross-examine Rubio about Donald Trump taking the oil money from Venezuela and moving it over to bank accounts in Qatar controlled by Donald Trump with no legal oversight by Congress and under what legal authority, Rubio, do you believe that we just take this money and move it to bank accounts in Qar? Here, play this clip

again. Um, I want to ask about the oil. Under US law, funds received by the government must be deposited with Treasury. Earlier, you testified that the funds are being held short-term in cutter and then we'll move to a Treasury blocked account. Um, what is the statutory authority for the administration relying on cutter to hold the funds?

It's not our funds. The funds are in a in a in a in an account that's owned and signed. It's an it's an account that belongs to Venezuela, but it has US sanctions as a blocking mechanism on it. And one of the primary reasons why it was in a third country initially and so we could create the mechanism to move it to a US presence is twofold. One, we have an issue we're working through on recognition. What is exactly? You have to recognize a government. We don't recognize this government. We recognize the 2015 National Assembly. So we have to find some creative way legally to meet that standard. The other is frankly creditors. If any of that money touched the US bank, even if it was an account in the name of the Venezuelans, it would immediately be seized upon by a number of creditors who eventually will have to take care of. But in the short term, that would impede the ability of the Venezuelan authorities to receive the

funds they need to operate. So, do you have the I mean, this is what I'm trying to get at, right? The either it's American money, in which case it's subject to the miscellaneous receipts act, and there are all kinds of things that attend to that. You're saying it's it's Venezuela's money, but it does sound like according to the EO, according to the president's statements, you are in charge of that money. How do what authority are you relying on to be in charge almost in a sort of receiverhip kind of arrangement of how uh funds are both received and expended for a foreign country? Like wouldn't you have to come to Congress to establish that kind of relationship?

Well, no, because the money never enters our hands. We don't we only control the dispersement of the money. We don't control the actual money like it comes into our bank account. Do you think that you have somewhere in the statute or the constitution the authority to control dispersements of a foreign country?

Well, they've agreed to this and that's the key. They've agreed to this arrangement in which the sanctions that are placed on this oil is what blocks its distribution. We've agreed to release sanctions and allow the dispersement of the funding as long as they're spending it in a certain way. I understand it's novel, but it's the best we could come up with in the short term to ensure that there

is there a written agreement that memorializes this. And yes, I I believe there is and there will have to be one most certainly once we transition that to US account.

Secretary, I'm my understanding is the committee doesn't have this agreement if we do or we don't.

Yeah, and you probably wouldn't because it's a Treasury matter. Treasury's handled it, but I can most certainly talk to Treasury about providing you the information. Also, you're the national security adviser. So, you do have a role here in coordinating between the department. So, it's not just like you can punt this to tri.

Yeah. I just didn't bring the document with I got it. I just want you to land it and get it to the committee cuz you look, you're being transparent. I think this is novel. I think it's funky. I think it may not even be permissible, but I don't know until I see the document. And

the world may feel like it's metaphorically on fire right now, but we also have to make sure we keep highlighting one truly existential issue that still isn't getting enough attention, and that's climate change. Because this is no longer about the distant future. This is urgent and it's happening right now. A major new report warns that the environmental crisis is arriving decades earlier than scientists once expected. I want to highlight this new article in the Independent. It's called Climate Change is here. Experts warn environmental crisis is decades ahead of forecast. Be sure to check this out. So, according to experts, the extreme events we were once told to expect in the 2050s and beyond are already here. Last year was the third hottest year on record. And the World Meteorological Organization says that 2025 has continued a run of extraordinary global temperatures. The EU now warns that the Paris agreement's

one and a half degree threshold could be broken before 2030. Samantha Burgess of the Copernicus Climate Change Service put it bluntly. She said, "Climate change is here and we're seeing events today that models once predicted for the middle of the century. The oceans absorbed more heat in 2025 than any year in modern records. We've seen an increase in wildfires. The Atlantic saw three category 5 hurricanes in a single year, including Hurricane Melissa, which intensified rapidly because of warmer seas, leaving communities with little time to respond. Research from the Grand Pam Institute shows that climate change has tripled heat related deaths during European heat waves. In the global south, the impacts are even more devastating and often under reportported with deadly floods in Pakistan and severe drought across East Africa. The International Federation of the Red Cross warns that these disasters are

piling on top of existing crises, pushing vulnerable communities to the brink. And even in what insurers like Swiss Re call a quote quiet year, economic losses still approached historic averages. These are not normal conditions. I want to be clear about this. This is the reality of climate change now. So, let me know your thoughts in the comments. Make it clear that you care about these issues because we're going to keep covering them and we're not looking away. Okay, Ben, back to you.

Senator Tim Kaine cross-examined Rubio about Donald Trump continuing to mistake Iceland for Greenland and Rubio admits Donald Trump got it wrong. Donald Trump just said the wrong place. But didn't Caroline Levid say that Donald Trump didn't say the wrong place and that Donald Trump just said block of ice? Didn't confuse Iceland for Grein? We all heard what Donald Trump said. He said he wanted to invade Iceland. He shouldn't be invading any of these countries. What are we talking about here? Here, play this clip.

Speech in Davos. Here's what something the president said in Davos. I'm helping NATO until the last few days when I told them about Iceland. They loved me. They're not here for us on Iceland. That I can tell you. Our stock market took the first tip yesterday because of Iceland. So, Iceland has already cost us a lot of money. President repeatedly mistook Iceland for Greenland. Right. We're not mad at Iceland. They haven't cost us any money. The president just mistook the two countries for each other. Correct.

Yeah, he meant to say Greenland, but I think we're all familiar with presidents that have verbal stumbles. We've had presidents like that before. Some made a lot more than this one.

Nice try. Thanks. All right. Well, thank you. I thought he did well. Next, you have Democratic Senator Shaheen cross-examined Rubio about where this Venezuelan oil money is going. Watch Rubio admit that it's in this Qatari bank account with no oversight by the government. play this clip or

right so it's been reported that the oil sold for 500 million that 300 million went to Venezuelan government what happened to the other 200 million

it's still sitting in the account is my understanding at this time the account in cutter

well the account yes but that will ultimately be trans that's a short-term account ultimately it will be a US Treasury blocked account in the United States

and will it also be audited correct well that the audit will be on the expenditures at the front end we'll tell them this is what the money can be spent on again I'm not talking about all the other revenue revenues the Venezuelan government may have. We're talking about the revenues from the sanctioned oil. At the front end, we will say this is what the allowable expenses are and then they will agree to fund as part of the overall cost. They they will pay for and fund an audit system acceptable to us to ensure that that's how the money was spent.

And can you more from Senator Rosen here? Cross-examine Ruby about who actually is running American foreign policy. Are you running the foreign policy? Who's running it? Here, play this clip. because despite the fact that you um famously or infamously have numerous jobs in the administration, your secretary of state, your national security adviser, it is increasingly unclear who's actually directing US foreign policy under President Trump. We have a special envoy, special envoy Whit. He's reportedly conducted Russian Ukraine talks in Switzerland beyond your awareness. He and Jared Kushner have been described as managing the president's Gaza plan. Meanwhile, Ambassador Bareric is leading on Syria policy while special envoy Bulos is appearing to lead on our Africa policy.

So, I have to ask you um I I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask you, are you the lead for US government on foreign policy?

No. The lead on US foreign policy is named Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States. On the individuals you've described, these are very valuable teams. We have an ex if I can answer because I think it's important. It's a legitimate question. I have the distinction but I think both the benefit of being the national security adviser and the secretary of state. As national security adviser, my job is to coordinate the inter agency function of national security and that involves foreign policy. So I speak to Steve Woodoff and Jared and Jared Kushner in the case of Gaza and now Russia probably 10 times a day. We have multiple meetings and coordination. All of it is we we build a team. We gather facts, we present options and then we take them to the president. It is the president who directs the national foreign the foreign policy of the United States. That's always been the case. By

the way, you can't overru more cross-examin cross-examination here from Democratic Senator Duckworth. Watch this. Let's play this clip.

Gang responsible directly. The Trump administration has acknowledged that the vast majority of the men it rounded up and deported to torture under this law had no criminal records whatsoever.

We didn't independent over 75%. Who did we torture? We haven't tortured anybody. We've arrested people that are members of gangs and we've deported them. We don't want gang members have found that many of the men were here legally. If the administration is willing to lie about who it's targeting under this law, what protections do totally innocent people have against abuse? Again, I want to ask you, will you advise the president to resend his invocation of the wartime alien and

No, of course not. I mean, these are people that are threats to the national security of the United States, but we I've described this in hearings in the past including

So, you're saying that we are at war? We are absolutely when it comes to narot trafficking groups and criminal gangs that are targeting the United States for criminal in a state of war.

There's no doubt about the fact that we're confronting them in a war like a lie. And do they convention?

They're waging war against us. And really, Rubio, you're saying that nobody's being tortured or harmed by the ISER Border Patrol Gustapo. Yet another lie by Rubio. And here Rubio talks about where the Venezuelan oil money is going. It's like here's the thing. It gets deposited into a blocked account in Qatar. Why Qar? Why are you moving this money to Qar? Oh, it's Donald Trump's personal slush fund, isn't it? Here, watch this clip. That oil, the proceeds of that oil, which by the way is being sold at market price, not at the discount Venezuela was being forced to sell, is being deposited into an account that ultimately will become a US Treasury blocked account here in the United States. We will they will submit we will at the front end say this is what this money can be spent on on these things. We will submit to them uh they will submit to us a budget request. We want to use this money for these things

and as part and part of the proceeds will go to fund a uh audit process to make sure that that's how the money is being spent and that's how we intend to handle those funds in the short term.

There's an actual audit process that's been set up who it will be set up and we have a couple options uh you know I one option is the XM bank. They have expertise as bankers and being able to do some of that part option. There may be some others in place. We haven't finalized what that audit process would be. We've only made one payment and that payment we did and retrospectively will be audited. But it was important we made that payment because they had to meet payroll. They had to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers on staff.

It was a $300 million pay, right? So it's then you had Republican Senator Ran Paul cross-examining Marco Rubio for Rubio saying, "Okay, there was not a war in Venezuela because the Trump regime doesn't want to uh get the authorization from Congress that's required." So Ran Paul's like, "So I just want to understand this. So if another country kidnapped the United States president and brought him off to their country, you're saying that you wouldn't view that as an act of war?" Watch Marco Rubio's squirm here. Play this clip. Our founders debated extensively over which branch of government should have the power to declare or initiate war. Virtually unanimously they decided and what was entered into the constitution was that the declaration or initiation of war would be the power of congress. Now we have many advocates many of whom are here today uh who have been advocates for an expansive notion of presidential

power. They often argue that wars are not really wars, that they're kinetic actions or drug busts. I think though if you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. So I would ask you if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war? Well, I think your question is about the and I will acknowledge you've been very consistent on all these points the entire career. So, um, let me let me no matter who the who's in charge. So, I will point to two things. The first is it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about 4 and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, wanted with a $50 million.

Question would be if it only took four hours to take our president, it's very short. Nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It's perfect. Would it be an act of war?

We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war.

But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies. Few casualties. They're in and out. Boom. It's a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate. And I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So, I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument. One-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves that cannot be universally applicable are bad arguments.

More from Senator Rand Paul here cross-examining Rubio. Play this clip. It is. And let's vote on these things. But I think we're in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capital, blockading a country, and removing uh uh elected officials. And we certainly wouldn't tolerate it, nor would I if someone did it to us.

But we we didn't remove an elected official. Um we removed someone who was not elected and it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United States and their system.

Our laws indicted under our laws. Look, Bolsinaro says that Dilva is not really the president of Brazil. Our president said Biden wasn't really the president. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 Trump wasn't the president. So you have these arguments and I agree with you. It probably was and most likely was most assuredly was a bad election. He wasn't really elected. But at the same time, if that's our predicate and you don't have to come to us because it's a drug bust, we're just removing somebody. You can see where it leads to and it leads to uh chaos and that's why we have rules like the Constitution so we don't get so far out there that presidents can do whatever they want. It is this check and balance and I would argue for 70 years we've been going the wrong way. It isn't just this president, but it's a debate that I think is worth having.

And I think here, Senator Ran Paul, just continue to press at this point. Let's play it.

Arguments. So, it's a drug bust. What if a foreign country indictes our president for violating a foreign law? Should we extradite our president or should we be okay if they come in and get him by force?

Look, I think ultimately we're always going to act act in our national interest. And so if somebody comes after our national interest, like the case you've described, which obviously um does not exist at this time, but the case you've described, the US always has the right to act in its national interest and to protect itself.

I I don't I don't know about this equivalency. Does this justify them doing it? We're always going to do what's best for the United States and America. We're always going to protect our system.

But the point isn't and you're exactly right. We will act in our national interest and we should. So I'm not disagreeing with you at all. What I'm saying is though that our our arguments are empty. Then the drug bust isn't really an argument. It's a roose. The war argument, not a war is a war, is a roose. It's not a real argument. And we do what we do because we are we have the force. We have the might. We do it because it's in our interest. So, we wouldn't let anybody come in, bomb us, blockade us, and take our president. Uh, you know, we've had arguments about legitimate, illegitimate presidents, bad elections, rigged elections. So there's all kinds of same arguments that we've had in our country that they've had in Venezuela.

Then finally, you have Democratic Senator Tim Kaine discuss how he really would like to use this Senate hearing to talk about the war crimes or crimes against humanity that are being committed off the coast of Venezuela where the Trump regime just killing people on fishing boats. Uh and they're saying, "Oh, these are narot terrorists." But we're learning more and more that these people just seem to be on fishing boats. And even if they were having drugs on it, there's not fentinyl on these boats. And even if there was drugs on these boats, which there doesn't appear to be. I think there was one boat maybe smelled of marijuana.

Maybe don't just get to kill and murder people. But Tim Kaine says that the Trump regime has universally declared everything relating to these war crimes to be confidential so that we can't have public hearings on it, which is absolutely despicable. Watch Tim Kaine finish off this hearing. Play this clip. ed this operation on September 2nd with the attack on Venezuelans and boats and open waters. Um, and now we are nearly 5 months in. Next week is five months. Finally, a public hearing. Wow, how novel. Finally a public hearing in the Senate or House. This is the first public hearing we've had. 200 folks who are on secret designated combatant lists have been killed. US troops have been injured. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on Armada amassed the announcement of a new Monroe doctrine which does not land well in the Americas. Democrats have been asking over and over again. Can we have

a public hearing? Can we share what we know with the American public? Finally, a public hearing. But even that hearing is constrained. I'd like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about the strikes on boats in international waters, but I can't because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting. I can't tell you why the domestic rationale is hollow and the international rationale is hollow. I can't tell you why the rationale for attacking Venezuela is hollow because again the rationale has been shared with us in a closed setting.

I can't share with you the grim details of the murder of shipwreck survivors in open waters that we all know because we've seen the videos and we've questioned the US military officials involved about legality because the administration will not release that publicly. They released the boat strike videos publicly, but they hid the second strike that killed struggling shipwreck survivors even from Congress for nearly 3 months. But I can't really talk to you about it. I can't talk to you about the weakness of the targeting criteria being used to attack boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. I would encourage any colleague, if you have not, go to the classified setting and ask for a briefing on each strike and ask this question. What was the evidence that there were narcotics on that craft? You will be very surprised if you ask that question about every strike. And so even in this first public hearing, 5 months

in, there's a lot we can't talk about. If it was such a righteous operation, why is the administration and the majority in this Senate so jealously protecting the details about it from being revealed to the American public? I have Virginiaians deployed in this operation. I can't answer their famil family's questions. Thank God we're having a public hearing 5 months in. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Mr. Secret, there you have it, folks. Let me know what you think there. You saw Marco Rubio squirm. I think obviously he lied over and over again, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Hit subscribe. Help us get to 6 million subscribers. You may think you're subscribed, but you may not actually be subscribed. So double check and uh thanks for watching and have a great one.

The truth is more important than ever. Check out our new truth over lies collection at store.midestouch.com. All 100% USA union made.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"?

Marco Rubio (Guest), Tammy Duckworth (Guest), Tim Kaine (Guest), Rand Paul (Guest), Jacky Rosen (Guest), Chris Van Hollen (Guest).

What is "🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing" about?

Marco Rubio faced intense scrutiny during a Senate hearing, where he struggled to respond to aggressive cross-examination from Democratic senators, particularly around the implications of the President’s invocation of the wartime Alien Enemies Act in relation to Venezuela. His nervousness was evident as he frequently reached for water, and concerns were raised about potential perjury regarding…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

11 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Marco Rubio, Venezuela, Donald Trump, Aliens Act, Climate Change, Senator Tammy Duckworth. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨Rubio FOLDS under AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"?

The episode runs 31 min; the transcript is about 6,073 words in 82 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 29, 2026.