A leading American legal authority has thrown his weight behind the US operation that nabbed Nicolas Maduro, calling it textbook constitutional action with ironclad defenses against courtroom attacks.

Michael O’Neil, in an in-depth exchange, explained why viewing Maduro as a sitting president misses the mark. Washington sees him as a indicted kingpin of Cartel de los Soles, accused since 2020 of spearheading massive drug smuggling and terror ties that hit US shores hard. Federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District are gearing up for his trial, backed by unanimous US policy across administrations.

Constitutionally, presidents wield Article II powers to enforce laws rigorously. Post-indictment, arrest becomes mandatory. O’Neil pointed to historical parallels, like Noriega’s 1989 takedown and subsequent upheld sentencing, proving courts honor executive foreign policy calls on leader legitimacy.

Head immunity arguments? Unlikely to fly without proven recognition, which Maduro lacks. Judges typically side with government stances here. Military aid in the raid? Justified for protection amid dangers. Looking ahead, expect a marathon legal battle: pretrial motions, full trial, appeals spanning years. Yet O’Neil is clear—the core issue is applying US criminal law to a serious offender, where the government’s case shines.