Continuing to try to advance the US narrative that Venezuelan opposition
leader Juan Guaido is the “duly elected” president, CNN went to the
trouble on Sunday afternoon of inventing an entire election to base this
In the CNN report, they declared “pressure is mounting on Maduro to step down, following elections in January in which voters chose opposition leader Juan Guaido over him for president.” There was no election in January.
In reality, Venezuela’s presidential election was held on May 20, 2018. The opposition boycotted the vote, Maduro won with 67.8% of the vote, while Guaido did not participate at all.
Indeed, the only time Juan Guaido participated in a presidential vote of any kind was the 2012 Democratic Unity Roundtable’s presidential primary, which he lost. Guaido’s first claim to the presidency came in January of 2019, when he unilaterally declared himself “acting president.”
Yet the Trump Administration not only endorsed Guaido as president at this time, they’ve begun referring to him as the “duly elected” president despite such an election never taking place. US media outlets have parroted that claim, but CNN took it a step farther to invent the election too.
The CNN article was written by two senior writers, and had four others contribute to it. It is hard to imagine that none of them caught this false claim of a January vote. Yet the article remained unchanged throughout Sunday and overnight, and it was only some time on Monday that it was finally revised to say that Guaido had “declared himself interim president.”
CNN Falsely Claims Venezuela’s Guaido Was Elected President in JanuaryThere was no election in January
Continuing to try to advance the US narrative that Venezuelan opposition
leader Juan Guaido is the “duly elected” president, CNN went to the
trouble on Sunday afternoon of inventing an entire election to base this
39 thoughts on “CNN Falsely Claims Venezuela’s Guaido Was Elected President in January”
The Dulles Brothers are so hard in their caskets right now.
It’s like Pinocchio but with weiners and they get bigger when we coup democratically elected govts.
Reagan too, he loved supporting right-wing death squads bent on overthrowing duly-elected leftist governments in this hemisphere, even if he had to break the law and send a patsy to prison.
Has the United States Government applied sanctions to Venezuela ? If so then the game is over, sanctions ARE AN ACT OF WAR ! Am I missing something ? If we (the U.S.) have already applied sanctions on Venezuela, and that is an ACT OF WAR that makes the U.S. the Aggressor and that violates International Law doesn’t it ? Has that darned Maduro guy attacked us ? If so, then we have a reason to ask our Congress to Declare War on them ! If not, then it is time for us to butt out and let the Venezuelan people take care of their own problems. But, what about all of that oil that we want from them ? What about all the other natural resources the U.S. is trying to confiscate from them ? Don’t those all belong to the ruling elite (I hate that term) of the U.S. ? I guess the U.S. is trying to Libya Venezuela, and look how that turned out for the Libyan people !
Has Trump tweeted “fake news” yet? Or did he send them a thank you card?
You mean they had something glaringly incorrect in the 5th paragraph of the article, which they’ve *since corrected?*
In the worst case, looks like once or more of the writers had an agenda, but if that agenda was CNN-wide, they wouldn’t have corrected it.
CNN reported on Friday that Hillary was elected in a secret snap election in January 2019. Several senior writers contributed to the story.
On Sunday the story was corrected to “Hillary threw a flower pot at Bill – again- when the subject of Monica came up.”
p.s. If this story were the work of a rogue writer, surely he has been fired along with the editor who oversaw the work.
This was buried in the 5th paragraph in a story about a military helicopter crash. Whatever intern was stuck actually “writing” the story looked for filler to beef up his word count, saw that big juicy “fact” and stuck it in there, on a Sunday. On Monday, an editor noticed it and struck it from the story, which, again, was about a helicopter crash, NOT about Guaido and Maduro.
Your cutesy attempt to draw a parallel would be more accurate, if it went more like this:
“Two former top officials in Sierra Leone were arrested on Thursday as part of a crackdown on graft by new President Ernest Koroma Bio’s government. Anti-Corruption Commission head Francis Ben Kaifala said Victor Foh, ex-President Julius Maada’s vice president.”
See what I did there? Maada is the CURRENT president of Sierra Leone, not the ex-President. Fake news!
Unless they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Even LBJ had to admit they could have been “shooting at whales” in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was not a glitch. CNN is a cesspool of revolving-door, corporate, deep state mercenaries. They have a side and that side is called war. They lied about Iraq. They lied about Libya. Now they’re lying about Venezuela.
Again, that was in the “filler” section of a story about a military helicopter crash. What to most people who don’t care about Venezuela (most of the population) is a throwaway factoid was then *edited out of the article* less than a day later.
No one had their hand in the cookie jar, because if you actually read the article, you’ll see it’s not about Guaido and Maduro, or advocating for taking one side or the other. It’s about a military helicopter crash.
You see the same exact thing here – paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, in an article questioning whether or not notorious Iran-hating Bolton was talking Trump in to war with Iran, had to throw in an utter lie about Trump’s approval rating being higher than ever at 46% because of the “astonishing performance of the economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation,” which has nothing to do with Iran or anything else in the story, but Buchanan loves tax cuts for the rich and deregulation, so he threw it in there, because he has an agenda.
It has nothing to do with Trump, I’m not sure who’s running things but it is starting to scare me. And don’t wear me out with a bunch of zionist conspiracy crap…
This has everything to do with Trump. He gets a pass, for what reason? Sheer incompetence? Because he has no control over the people he hired and appointed? What other President in history has been given a complete pass for chaos strewn by a combination of bad hires and random Presidential tweets which undermine official statements issued by his own Cabinet? Republicans love to prove that government is evil because it’s inefficient and doesn’t work. It doesn’t work when you hire the wrong people.
“He (Trump) gets a pass” writes Mork who then goes on to say a “complete pass.” This error by CNN is a minor one, but it is a drop in a bucket of misinformation and innuendo so large that could contain an ocean.
C’mon Mork, I am generally considered a leftist with libertarian leanings, and it is clear to me that no president in my lifetime, which includes Nixon time, has ever been hammered so hard by the media with the fiction of Russiagate – 24/7 for 2.5 years. If that is not clear to you after Mueller came up empty handed on Trump, then I suggest you leave the thinking and writing to Mindy.
BTW, M.A.G.A.! (Mueller Ain’t Got Anything!).
They also never explain what it means that el Guaido is the “head’ of the Assembly. What office does he hold? Is that their equivalent of our Speaker of the House? Why not ever say so? Did the Assembly take action denying the legitimacy of the election?
“They also never explain what it means that el Guaido is the “head’ of the Assembly. What office does he hold?”
He was elected president of the National Assembly (and yes, that is roughly equivalent to “Speaker of the House”) last December and sworn in on January 5.
“Did the Assembly take action denying the legitimacy of the election?”
Yes. The National Assembly declared an emergency and invoked Article 233 (IIRC) of the Venezuelan Constitution over it, which according to them makes Guaido acting/interim president.
But there is some dispute over whether or not the National Assembly remains the legislature of Venezuela. After the opposition won control of that body, a lame duck session packed the country’s supreme court, which has since invalidated everything the National Assembly does in favor of treating a Constituent Assembly (2/3 popularly elected, 1/3 chosen by “social sector” groups aligned with Maduro), which is supposed to write a new constitution subject to referendum, as the de facto legislature.
A couple of points:
“Did the Assembly take action denying the legitimacy of the election?”
Yes. The National Assembly declared an emergency and invoked Article 233 (IIRC) of the Venezuelan Constitution over it …
If I recall correctly, in order to invoke Article 233, there must be a vacant Presidency. No such vacancy existed. Rather, the assembly ***DECLARED IT VACANT*** based on their claim that the election was illegitimate. Also, this stunt was planned by the US in coordination with the Venezuelan opposition. The US is reported to have advised the opposition to boycott the election for the express purpose of creating the rationale for subsequently declaring it illegitimate. However, at least two opposition candidates chose to run despite the boycott, so the boycott was not comprehensive, and the plan, lame to begin with, fizzled. The opposition & US nevertheless went ahead with the plan, and declared the election illegitimate. (Election interference by the US? Ho hum. Move right along, nothing to see here.)
“After the opposition won control of [the National Assembly], a lame duck session packed the country’s supreme court … ”
Accepting this as accurate, the question would be, was this “packing” done legally, that is, according to the Constitution. Lame duck or not, if it was done according to the Constitution, then it was legit. The fact that it may have been heavy-handed, and intended to preemptively neuter the power of the incoming, soon-to-be-opposition-controlled National Assembly, is just the reality of power. That’s politics. Much the same as how the GOP lame duck Senate blocked Obama’s attempted appointment of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme court following Scalia’s death. (Politics is a rough game. In the final analysis, power trumps principle. You love it when it works in your favor, and hate it when you’re on the losing end. Cf electoral college vs popular vote in 2016. This is the reality of Constitutional power. The alternative to accepting this reality is, per Thomas Jefferson:
“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”
Finally, any discussion of the events in Venezuela must be seen in the context of the 20-year effort by the US to terminate Chavismo: the populist power of the Bolivarian Revolution vs the massive power of the Imperium. Hope vs reality.
“The strong do as they wish, the weak suffer as the must.” Thucydides
If I recall correctly, in order to invoke Article 233, there must be a vacant Presidency. No such vacancy existed. Rather, the assembly ***DECLARED IT VACANT*** based on their claim that the election was illegitimate.
That means there’s one of two possibilities:
1) The Assembly is not the “legitimate” legislature, in which case “no such vacancy existed.”
2) The Assembly is the “legitimate” legislature, in which case such a vacancy did exist, precisely because they held the election illegitimate.
“Also, this stunt was planned by the US in coordination with the Venezuelan opposition.”
No, really? I’m shocked — shocked! — that plotters are gonna plot.
Very complicated to say who is legitimate. There is also the “Constituent Assembly”, which was in the works since 1999. Two assemblies, each claims the other null. Then of course, us Americans trying to figure who is who, and which media source to trust. Overall, considering the record of US foreign policy, I am going to be prejudiced against whoever they back. Just a good bet. If only there were a way to make our “leaders” take care of business at home, lord knows got plenty to work on here.
Well, you know me — there’s a reason I put “legitimate” in scare quotes when referring to would-be regimes/regime heads. In a situation like this, I’m generally prejudiced against all the involved parties 😀
One detail – and I may have details of it wrong. Guaido was not elected president of the National Assembly. The presidency rotates among the various parties in the legislature. The Assembly moved Guaido’s party’s rotation forward most conveniently so that he was president in January. He then proclaimed himself president. So he was never elected to the post of president of anything.
But even worse is the idea put about that the last presidential election was not won fair and square by Maduro. Maduro won by an overwhelming margin – in part because the opposition refused to run a candidate and called for a boycott. Either they knew they could not win or else they felt the elections were rigged. But international observers from Western countries gave the elections a clean bill of health and Jimmy Carter long ago said that the election machinery put in place by Chavez was one of the cleanest and best in the world. The US and 50 countries recognize Guaido but that leaves about 140 that do not!!! And the UN recognizes Maduro not Guaido.
So the big picture is that Guaido is a creature of Washington, a former model and fascist street thug who had hoped not for a revolution but for the betrayal of the military to topple the government in place. That is known as a coup where I come from.
Guaido is a joke. And the US looks like a fool for using him as its puppet. Heckuva job, John Bolton. Bolton has served well in undermining the image of the US Empire in Latin America and the world. Evil but stupid.
“Guaido was not elected president of the National Assembly. The presidency rotates among the various parties in the legislature.”
Thanks for that info — I hadn’t found it anywhere, and made the mistake of assuming that, like the “Speaker” position in the US equivalent, the “presidency” of the Assembly was elected.
“Maduro won by an overwhelming margin – in part because the opposition refused to run a candidate and called for a boycott. ”
Well, that’s one way of putting it. Another way of putting it — the opposition’s way — is that after Maduro either jailed or disqualified all of his popular/credible opponents, the opposition called for a boycott. Then a “clean” election was held in which the only candidates allowed to run against Maduro were the candidates Maduro wanted running against him, and mirabile dictu!, Maduro won.
If Guaido wanted a “coup,” he had a funny way of asking for it. He went to the street and addressed both the populace and the rank and file military. That’s a call for an uprising or revolution.
A coup is generally a sudden, un-pre-announced, move by hand-picked troops operating under the orders of top officers to seize control of communications and administration centers. Perhaps there was such a move and it was unsuccessful, but if so one would think Maduro would have trumpeted the fact loudly.
The plausible conclusion is that while Guaido may have wanted a coup, he couldn’t get the people he needed for one on his side, so he took his rallying cry to the people — also unsuccessfully.
Maduro is clearly more popular than the US regime seems to think he is. On the other hand, the size of street actions by both sides seems to indicate a significant split among the masses as well.
Which candidates were disqualified and more important which ones were jailed?
If that is the case, why did the international monitors put their stamp of approval on the election?
There is definitely a significant portion of the population that opposes Maduro, and from what I understand it is based in the wealthy areas of the cities and country.
I lived for a short while in a South American country many years ago, Colombia to be specific, to look into the problem of malnourished children of which there were plenty. Venezuela was not different. And it appears that nothing much has changed. It is not hard to see why Chavez and then Maduro developed a following.
But none of all this matters in the end. In the end the US is supporting a “regime change” op in Venezuela and using sanctions to cause a lot of pain including starvation and lack of medical care – the very purpose of these sanctions. Whether libertarian or leftist or paleocon, we are all against such interventions. To prevent the interventions we have to be on the alert for demonizations that justify them. If someone presents a picture of VZ that is too rosy, that is not good – we should all be for accuracy. But if someone presents a picture of VZ that over-emphasizes the problems, that is even worse because it is not only untrue but provides the ideological ammo to justify the sanctions and bombs.
To get a clear picture of what is happening in a targeted country is well nigh impossible because the MSM is always on the side of the interventionists, and we get blue-ribbon misinfo from it. It is hard enough to know what is going on in our own country let alone one far away with a different culture presented to us through the lens of the MSM.
So we should be careful not to buy into the demonization even a smidgen and to keep to the Ron Paul maxim which has the force of a law of Newton in evaluating US foreign policy: We should mind our own business.
Simple as that.
“Which candidates were disqualified and more important which ones were jailed?”
Leopoldo Lopez was both jailed and disqualified. Henrique Capriles was disqualified. Antonio Ledezma was both jailed and disqualified. Freddy Guevara was disqualified and fled the country when his parliamentary immunity was stripped. David Smolansky was disqualified. Maria Cornina Machado was disqualified. Miguel Rodriguez Torres was both jailed anbd disqualified. The Justice First and Democratic Unity Roundtable parties were required to “re-register” even though it wasn’t the usual time frame for that, then denied “revalidation” to put up candidates. Maduro ran “against” three hand-picked chavista “opponents” and an evangelical pastor.
“why did the international monitors put their stamp of approval on the election?”
What “international monitors” are you referring to? The United Nations was asked to send a monitoring delegation and declined on the claim that “the UN believes there are no conditions to guarantee a democratic process.”
The quote you give above about the UN is not the complete quote. The article says: “The left-wing government of President Nicolás Maduro, who is likely to win re-election on Sunday to govern for another six years, invited the United Nations and other international bodies to send observers, but the UN believes there are no conditions to guarantee a democratic process.” The UN could have sent observers and ruled that the elections were unfair. Instead it refused to look but instead rendered a judgement. That seems odd. It would have been much more damning had the UN sent observers and those observers condemned the process. If there was a risk of this, why did Maduro invite all these observers.
I think a more likely explanation, one that I recall reading at the time, is: “The opposition coalition of Venezuela, more weakened and fractured after the dissident Henri Falcón launched his candidacy for the elections, is boycotting the election saying that it represents a farce that seeks to legitimize a “dictatorship” and called for abstention.” The opposition coalition fractured and was unable to win in that state and so they boycotted the election and called it a “farce.” Perhaps Hillary should have called on the Dems to boycott because the Russians were interfering, then called the elections a “farce” and some time later have Pelosi declare herself President – at least Pelosi would have been elected to something.
But some of the administrative and criminal actions against individuals may have been unfair and undermined the validity of the process. I cannot tell because I do not know the society. But I notice that some of those actions against individuals go back to the time of Chavez when Jimmy Carter and his organization certified the elections in VZ with considerable praise.
So I think once again the complexities of what is happening in another society are very hard for us to understand and that anyone with a command of all the detail there can make up a story for either side convincing enough to fool a foreigner. So we are left with the simple notion again, with which I am sure you agree: We must mind our own business and cease the regime change ops whether via CIA, Sanctions or Bombs.
Your more likely explanation is also true, and doesn’t conflict in any way with the one I posted.
Interesting. You write: “I notice that some of those actions against individuals go back to the time of Chavez when Jimmy Carter and his organization certified the elections in VZ with considerable praise.” Carter also declined to send an observer team to this election.
“So we are left with the simple notion again, with which I am sure you agree: We must mind our own business and cease the regime change ops whether via CIA, Sanctions or Bombs.”
Oh, I agree completely. Just not because I see any reason to believe that Maduro is any “better” or more “legitimate” than Guaido. This seems to be a fight between the new ruling class and what’s left of the old ruling class — a fight for control of the wealth of, not preservation of the soul of, Venezuela.
“Leopoldo Lopez was both jailed and disqualified. Henrique Capriles was disqualified. Antonio Ledezma was both jailed and disqualified. Freddy Guevara was disqualified and fled the country when his parliamentary immunity was stripped. David Smolansky was disqualified. Maria Cornina Machado was disqualified. Miguel Rodriguez Torres was both jailed and disqualified. The Justice First and Democratic Unity Roundtable parties were required to “re-register” even though it wasn’t the usual time frame for that, then denied “revalidation” to put up candidates. Maduro ran “against” three hand-picked chavista “opponents” and an evangelical pastor.”
This is helpful, as it provides a rational basis for asserting that the electoral process in Venezuela may have legitimacy issues. I didn’t have this information, and didn’t weigh it in my assessment. I did know that there had been protests, and opposition violence resulting in loss of life, and that as a result, those behind the violence were held accountable, tried and convicted.
It’s similar to the “Lock her up!” Hillary Clinton situation, where her party says “It’s illegitimate to jail — or threaten to jail — your political opponents.” But no one mentions the alleged underlying crime, seemingly ignoring the idea of accountability for the powerful. It’s not the idea of jailing your political opponents as a means of excluding them from the political struggle — ie because they are your political opponents — it’s the idea that if they have committed crimes — allegedly — they should be held accountable just like “the little people”.
The same should be the case in Venezuela … should be the case everywhere, but the reality is that the rich and powerful enjoy “resources” amounting to a limited “get out of jail free” card. In the Venezuelan case I need more information, more details.
As Cratylus writes:
“But some of the administrative and criminal actions against individuals may have been unfair and undermined the validity of the process. I cannot tell because I do not know the society.”
I can’t tell either, but the history of Venezuela suggests that the indigenous people have risen from a condition of second-class citizenry to full political participation and achieved electoral dominance, and that the former ruling class is fighting against that “democratic” reality.
Violent rebellion is unlawful unless and until it wins the fight. and there’s some ugliness in that “truth”. Victor’s history & Victor’s justice.
I’m not a fan — or in the case of the US culture, a True Believer — of democracy. It is no guarantee of just governance. It’s just as capable of corruption and injustice as any dictatorship.
I’d like to see a redo on elections in Venezuela. Let all those previously excluded participate.
El Guaido is the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in the USA.
Perhaps, Ms. Pelosi should declare herself president of the USA to replace the corrupt Trump Regime, which came to power through an election of dubious legitimacy!
I am sure that millions of Democrats wouldn’t mind this development.
Hey CNN may be onto something. Why not let the people of Venezuela decide who’s president? Why not let the people of Venezuela solve their own problems? If we didn’t interfere, perhaps the Russians and the Chinese wouldn’t have had to either. Oh, sorry. Stupid idea.
C’mon. He was duly elected by John Bolton and Elliot Abrams.
Don’t forget Saint Mike.
CNN lying. What’s new…
Dear Sir: GREAT EXPOSURE, Thank You!
US media reported that the Venezuelan opposition leader declared himself interim president immediately following a phone call with US Vice President Mike Pence.
Did Venezuela’s President Really ‘Steal’ the 2018 Election from an Unknown Who Didn’t Run? That wouldn’t make sense. Because Guaidó didn’t even run in the 2018 presidential election. Before the fateful day of January 22, fewer than one in five Venezuelans had heard of Juan Guaidó. Only a few months ago, the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence. Even in his own party, Guaidó had been a mid-level figure in the opposition-dominated National Assembly, which is now held under contempt according to Venezuela’s constitution.
“US media reported that the Venezuelan opposition leader declared himself interim president immediately following a phone call with US Vice President Mike Pence”.
These Despicable American Traitors: Israeli Puppies want to Screw others The Way Israel is Doing with Americans through Her (Israeli) Agents; American & European Administrations For The Last Many Many Decades.
“CNN Falsely Claims Venezuela’s Guaido Was Elected President in January”
It shows, how Lowest of The Lowest Level, These Satanic God Fathers, i.e., American Past & Present Administrations along with Their Cronies, Can Go: What A Shame!
Yeah, this would be the very first time a news org has EVER lied on behalf of a warmongering government. -eyeroll- Quit clutching at your pearls already.
CNN PLUS FOX AND ALL THE OTHER LETTER LIARS ARE DRIVING FOR WAR ON BEHALF OF THE ADM AND BOLTON POMPEO. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS SO ASLEEP THEY WOULD NOT RECOGNIZED A LIE IF IT BIT THEM ON THE AS^&*(!!
Like the American media in general, CNN has peddled more egregious lies … I mean… understandable mistakes…. than the incident mentioned in this article, as part of its campaign to pimp for American-backed coup attempts against Venezuela.
This includes the New York Times, the Newspaper of Record (lies).
In particular, CNN and the NY Times attempted to portray an April 30th speech that Juan Guaido gave on a highway overpass by the La Carlota military airbase as an example of how the airbase itself had been “liberated” by thousands of America’s beloved moderate rebels.
However, the La Carlota base was never in the hands of these insurgents, and Guido has his groupies (which numbered in the dozens not thousands) beat a hasty retreat when government military approached–eventually seeking to hole up in the Spanish embassy.
This would be similar to Nancy Pelosi (along with a few dozens of her supporters) giving a speech declaring the beginning of La Revolution at a highway overpass near Bolling Air Force base outside of Washington DC–and the Free Press portrayed it as an example of how the base had fallen to American insurgents seeking to overthrow the government.
Fake News strikes again!
Failed ‘Coup’ a Fake Corporate News Story Designed to Trick Venezuelan Soldiers—and US Public
“US media outlets have parroted that claim….” They even caught Tulsi off guard with that lie. Here, a Faux interviewer laments that the US has been unable to topple Maduro and give the Venezuelan people “what they democratically voted for”: https://youtu.be/8xw-0m0R_vM?t=113
Tulsi failed to challenge this blatant lie, emboldening the interviewer to continue with her lies. Instead, she blathers about how the US should be working to get the opposing sides to talk and hold “…internationally brokered and overseen elections so that the Venezuelan people can truly have their voice heard…,” with the interviewer talking over her. At about 4:08, when Tulsi says the Venezuelan people should be the ones to decide their own fate, the interviewer interrupts to double down on her lie, saying that the Venezuelan people have made that choice. Well, yes they did in May of 2018 when they elected Maduro with 67% of the vote in an internationally observed election.
I like Tulsi and will probably vote for her if I have the chance, but she needs to toughen up on the underlying narrative and the media lies.
Comments are closed.