By Matt Underwood Trump says he tipped off oil companies on Venezuela attack, and the implications of this statement are staggering, really. It’s almost too absurd to believe, isn’t it? The core of the issue, as presented here, is that Trump, apparently, made sure oil companies were in the know about a military action against Venezuela, a move that potentially gave them an unfair advantage in the subsequent exploitation of the nation’s resources. The fact that he allegedly shared this information with the oil industry before informing Congress – the body with the constitutional power to declare war – raises immediate red flags. It suggests prioritizing the interests of private entities over national security and the rule of law. It’s the kind of thing that makes you shake your head and wonder, “Did he really do that?”
This alleged leak to oil companies doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It seems to have immediately impacted the stock market, with several oil company stocks showing a noticeable increase right around the time of the reported attack. That type of movement naturally invites suspicion of insider trading, benefiting from information that was not publicly available. If true, this could potentially constitute a serious criminal offense, particularly if the companies used the information to make financial gains. It’s important to remember that it’s a crime both to give and receive such information.
The potential list of those informed, as is described, seems to be a mile long and includes figures ranging from the usual suspects – like Russia and Netanyahu – to seemingly random people like his server and busboy at Mar-a-Lago, as well as his masseuse, and even a random person on Twitter. The apparent lack of discretion in disclosing this information raises serious questions about judgment and security protocols. Why wouldn’t Congress, the body responsible for oversight, be informed first? The answer, as it seems, is the protection of the interests of the powerful, namely the oil companies, which would directly profit from this action.
The motivation behind the alleged actions, as suggested, is simple: greed. The narrative here is that this was never about national security or humanitarian concerns. This, supposedly, was about pleasing the Oligarchs, the wealthy donors and investors who supported Trump’s campaign. It’s painted as a straightforward case of corruption, with private interests placed above national interests and legal obligations. The comments imply that this is how Trump operates – he works for the Oligarchs and that this kind of behavior is expected.
The fallout from this alleged incident, if true, could be immense. It would, at a minimum, be seen as a grave breach of the separation of powers and an egregious example of prioritizing private profit over national security. The potential for international condemnation, as Venezuela’s resources are said to have been seized for the benefit of the US and the oil companies, would be considerable. If such actions happened, they would be an impeachable offense.
The comments also highlight a deep sense of frustration. It is expressed that the mainstream media is failing to provide adequate coverage, and the public is, seemingly, underreacting. The lack of significant attention given to such a serious matter is a common complaint. This alleged situation is painted as a “global catastrophe,” and the lack of outrage is interpreted as indicative of broader issues in American politics and society.
The alleged incident also raises questions about accountability. The suggestion is that there will be no consequences, that this is just another in a long line of scandals that will be swept under the rug. This lack of accountability only seems to fuel a sense of cynicism and distrust in the system. The assertion is that these kinds of things are not reported for fear of leaks. The implication, here, is that Congress would not have been trusted with this information, given potential leaks, and the oil companies, on the other hand, are the reliable ones.
Another angle to this, seemingly, is that the event is a distraction. The comments suggest that this is a way to bury something else, like the Epstein files, for example. The idea is that a big, shocking scandal serves to divert attention from other, possibly more damaging revelations. Trump, it’s suggested, would not think twice about putting American military personnel at risk.
The response to this alleged event, as it’s laid out, is a call for action. Specifically, it encourages registration for primaries and voting out incumbents. The implication is that the current political system is broken and that the only way to fix it is to replace the people in power. The article ends with a sense of utter frustration, with the question: “When will Americans begin to rev lot against this utter shambles?”