president Maduro captured after US strikes

[putnam6]

and some wonder why they have no street cred....
for the correct factual and DI-approved perspective
 

18 intel sources, they said, Trump's Maduro charges against him have no evidence or truth. is this factual?
 
Searching the web
51 results
No, the claim that 18 intelligence sources said Trump's charges against Nicolás Maduro "have no evidence or truth" is not factual.
Recent reporting (from early January 2026) on the U.S. indictment and capture of Maduro references a specific U.S. intelligence assessment from April (likely 2025) that drew input from the 18 agencies in the U.S. Intelligence Community. This assessment found no evidence of coordination between the Maduro government and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).
President Trump repeatedly claimed Maduro had direct ties to TdA, including allegations that Maduro sent gang members to the U.S. or coordinated with them. Multiple fact-checks (from PBS, AP News, Al Jazeera, PolitiFact, and others) note that this specific claim lacks evidence and contradicts the intelligence assessment. However, this contradiction applies only to the TdA/gang linkage claims—not to the broader charges against Maduro.
The core U.S. charges against Maduro (from a 2020 indictment, updated and unsealed in 2026) center on narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking conspiracy, and corruption. These are based on evidence including:

• Recorded conversations from 2015 involving Maduro's wife's nephews discussing large cocaine shipments using Venezuelan government resources (e.g., presidential hangar).
  
• Allegations that Maduro and associates used military/intelligence resources to protect drug operations.
  
• Convictions of related figures (e.g., the nephews sentenced to 18 years).
  

No reporting indicates that the 18-agency intelligence community assessed these drug trafficking charges as lacking evidence. The indictment stands independently, and the U.S. proceeded with Maduro's capture and prosecution on these grounds.
The "18 sources" reference appears to be a partial or misrepresented recall of the TdA-specific finding, not a blanket dismissal of all charges. There is no evidence of any intelligence consensus stating the overall charges "have no evidence or truth."

[FlyersFan]

and some wonder why they have no street cred....
 

Actually they refuse to believe the fact that they don't.  
Overblown egos and all that.

Thanks for the fact check.   
Not surprised at what it turned out.
Story is totally bogus.

[SomeStupidName]

As I previously posted from 18 intel sources, they said Trump's charges against him have no evidence or truth.

lol, are those the same intel sources that said the hunter laptop was a Russian hoax?

[quintessentone]

and some wonder why they have no street cred....
for the correct factual and DI-approved perspective
 

The 18 intel agencies assessment is that Maduro had no ties to that gang.

"The new assessment draws input from the 18 agencies that comprise the intelligence community. It repeatedly stated that Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in a prison in Venezuela, is not coordinated with or supported by the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, or senior officials in the Venezuelan government. While the assessment found minimal contact between some members of the gang and low-level members of the Venezuelan government, there was a consensus that there was no coordination or directive role between gang and government."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-alien-e...act-venezu

These are Maduro's charges:

"Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, faces serious federal charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation conspiracy, stemming from his alleged role in a vast drug trafficking network."

They will need to tie him to a vast drug trafficking network which so far they have no evidence of his connection to drug cartels.

If they can, that's good, put him away for a long time.

[quintessentone]

lol, are those the same intel sources that said the hunter laptop was a Russian hoax?

I wouldn't know I didn't research that subject. And if you do a quick search there are many sources reporting the exact same thing, so you fail.

[putnam6]

Actually they refuse to believe the fact that they don't.  
Overblown egos and all that.

Thanks for the fact check.   
Not surprised at what it turned out.
Story is totally bogus.

Main thing its difficult enough to be 100% certain in situations like this.

But, Im here to learn, and if one is routinely wrong factually,
reading thier posts doesn't help my "journey within" at all.

[quintessentone]

 

Many of your X and Grok sources have been wrong, but I too am here to learn and not attack other members but rather prove their sources are biased or wrong. I think we should all start doing that, refuting facts with credible other facts and sources or learn how to identify opinion pieces without credible backup sources before posting opinions that one agrees with.

[KrustyKrab]

As I previously posted from 18 intel sources, they said Trump's charges against him have no evidence or truth.

Not necessarily true and not the bombshell you think it is.  From what I’m reading what they actually said differs from what you’re saying.  Of course out of convenience you left out a keyword of what they actually said “probably”.  I understand your mindsets urge to sensualize story’s, chit happens but facts matter.  

BTW: The FBI did not agree with the assessment.  They’re kinda important.  


“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime “probably” does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the memo said.

[quintessentone]

Newsflash:

"Legal concerns surround US capture of Venezuela's Maduro
 Was the US capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro legal under international law? Experts say no and believe any self-defense claim by the Trump administration is unlikely to hold up."

"Trump's first administration in 2020 labeled Maduro a "narco-terrorist" and accused him of heading a loosely defined collective of Venezuelan officials who have prospered from the drug trade.
 
In his second term, seemingly friendlier early relations that saw the Maduro regime assist the repatriation of Venezuelans amid Trump’s hard-line immigration stance quickly flipped into conflict, with the US targeting what it alleged were Venezuelan drug-running boats in the Caribbean. Trump also declared the drug fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.
 
But little evidence to support these claims has been given."

""This was a use of force," said Marko Milanovic, director of Global Law at the University of Reading in the UK.
 
"If you send 150 airplanes into another state, if you start bombing its air defenses, if you kidnap its president, if you kill dozens of people, that is a use of force in the sense of Article 2, paragraph 4."
 
There are exceptions, the most notable being authorization by the UN Security Council to proceed with military action against another country. However, this approval wasn't sought before Maduro's seizure.
Another is self-defense, though, given the US's outsize military strength relative to Venezuela, it is again unclear how this argument would hold up."

Legal concerns surround US capture of Venezuela's Maduro – DW – 01/04/2026

Again, another source saying Trump's claims have little to no evidence. It will be interesting following this court case.

[quintessentone]

Not necessarily true and not the bombshell you think it is.  From what I’m reading what they actually said differs from what you’re saying.  Of course out of convenience you left out a keyword of what they actually said “probably”.  I understand your mindsets urge to sensualize story’s, chit happens but facts matter.  

BTW: The FBI did not agree with the assessment.  They’re kinda important.  


“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime “probably” does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the memo said.

I read that, the FBI now in place does not agree with the past assessment, are you really surprised?

Another source also mentions that Trump's claims/charges have little to no evidence. So others are saying the same thing. We shall see what transpires in the court room.