CNN and Its Fake Venezuela Narrative

Thanks to the web archive at the Wayback Machine which never forgets what appears on the internet, we have a prime example of how the American mainstream media lies to its consumers in a desperate attempt to get them to believe whatever narrative they are promoting, in this case, the narrative that is being fed to American voters about the situation in Venezuela.

This story appeared on CNN this past weekend where it resided throughout Sunday May 5th, 2019 through to 11:09 am EST on Monday May 6th  when it was altered:

You will note that the story, written by two of CNN's senior writers, Jeanne Bonner and Jackie Castillo who actually is an Emmy Award wining journalist, states that:

"....pressure is mounting on Maduro to step down following elections in January in which voters chose Juan Guaido over him for president."

In fact, there was no presidential election in Venezuela in January 2019.  The last presidential vote  in Venezuela was held on May 20, 2018 and was boycotted by the opposition, facts that can be very easily confirmed using Google had the two "journalists" actually cared to provide their readers with the facts rather than the anti-Maduro/pro-Guaido narrative.  While the Lima Group of Latin American nations plus Canada stated that they did not recognize the legitimacy of the election, Nicolas Maduro actually did win 67.7 percent of the votes cast (a total of 6,190,612 votes), giving him a second term in office after he won his first term in 2013.  His opponents in May 2018 and the number of votes that each received were as follows:

Henri Falcon - 1,917,036 votes

Javier Bertucci Carrero - 988,761 votes

Reinado Jose Quijada - 36,246 votes

Even though voter turnout was very low by historical standards as shown on this graphic:

...we do know one thing for certain; despite what CNN may say, Juan Guaido did NOT run in Venezuela's 2018 presidential election.

By the way, this is what CNN's coverage of the Venezuelan military helicopter crash looked like after it realized that its coverage was wrong:

In this version of CNN's reality, Juan Guaido declared himself interim president in January.

We certainly do live in a fake news world.  CNN should be ashamed...but I rather doubt that they are.  Caveat emptor.

Washington's Pride in the Destruction of Venezuela

Thanks to the Grayzone, an independent news and politics website by renowned journalist Max Blumenthal, we have a glimpse into Washington's mindset when it comes to Venezuela.  As you will see in this posting, Washington is quite proud of its punishment of Venezuela and its 32 million people and brags about how its actions have led to its desired (and painful) outcomes.

The document that you are about to see is entitled "U.S. Actions on Venezuela" and is a fact sheet published by the United States Department of State dated April 24, 2019, just prior to the failed coup attempt.  Here is the link to the document and screen captures showing the document that was subsequently removed from this webpage:

The document lists the sanctions that the United States has made for individuals and entities in Venezuela since Donald Trump took office in 2017 with one listing prior to his administration.  Sofar, there are over 150 designated individuals and entities.  The one exception, Executive Order 13692, was put in place by Barack Obama to punish Venezuela's government for erosion of human rights, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms and violence against antigovernment protests as shown here:

In 2019 alone, there have been 10 additional sets of sanctioned individuals and entities.

The document notes that, on January 24, 2019, 16 members (including the United States) of the Organization of American States (OAS) recognized that Juan Guaido was the interim President of Venezuela and that, on March 27, 2019, 19 members voted in favour of humanitarian assistance in Venezuela.  It is interesting to note that there are 35 member nations in the OAS meaning that in the first case, a minority of members voted with the United States and in the second case, a slim majority of members voted with the United States.  These facts are not mentioned in the State Department document.  The document also looks at how the United Nations and Lima Group have tried to manipulate the situation in Venezuela, in particular the vote at the U.N. Security Council on February 28, 2019 on Draft Resolution S/2019/186 which was quashed by Russia and China.  Here's what Russia's representative Nebenzia had to say:

"Let us take a look at the text of the draft resolution to see exactly what the United States is proposing that the Security Council vote on, which is that we should recognize the Venezuelan National Assembly’s, and I quote, “constitutional authority”, and the presidential elections held in May of last year as “neither free nor fair” — and this almost a year after they took place. That is why the United States has prepared this draft resolution. Its hypocritical concern for the humanitarian situation in the country is merely a smokescreen. But perhaps the United States has another goal — making history. If this draft resolution were to be adopted, it would be the first time in history that the Security Council had removed one President of a sovereign country from office and installed another. Is that world democracy in action? I am not even talking here about the politics at issue or the question of Maduro versus Guaidó. Do the members of the Council really not understand that this is legally illiterate, null and void? What is this thinly veiled trolling and mocking of Council members? Do those planning to support the Americans’ draft resolution understand that they will be participating in a legal theatre of the absurd?

The United States delegation cannot possibly be unaware that its draft resolution has no chance of being adopted and yet has deliberately submitted it to the Council so that afterwards it can point fingers at those who it claims are obstructing the “restoration of democracy” in Venezuela. It is now deliberately undermining the Council’s unity. But does it need it? Our American colleagues seem to have forgotten what international law is. All they have left in their diplomatic arsenal is ultimatums, sanctions and threats of the use of force." (my bolds)

Now, let's back and take a closer look at the bottom line of the Fact Sheet, the key outcomes of Washington's efforts in Venezuela during the first four months of 2019:  

1.) Governments recognizing Juan Guaido as president - After Juan Guaido announced his interim presidency in January 2019, a total of 54 nations have recognized him as interim president.  Keeping in mind that there are 193 member states in  the United Nations, we can see that just over one-quarter of the world has proclaimed its support for Mr. Guaido, hardly a ringing endorsement. 

2.) Members of the Venezuelan military recognizing Juan Guaido as president - According to the document, 1000 members of Venezuela's military have recognized Juan Guaido's interim presidency.  According to Global Firepower, Venezuela has an estimated 128,000 military personnel with 120,000 active members meaning that the 1000 defectors represent just 0.078 percent of the total.

3.) Oil Production and Sales - Venezuela's oil production has now fallen to 736,000 BOPD in March 2019, a decline of 48.4 percent on a year-over-year basis.  Here is a graphic from the Energy Information Administration showing what has happened to Venezuela's oil (crude oil and liquids) production since 1980:

Between 2017 and 2018, average daily production fell from 2.057 million BOPD to 1.516 million BOPD. 

This declining production has cut oil revenues to the Maduro government.  As well, according to the Fact Sheet, there are 25 crude oil tankers with 12 million barrels of oil (worth roughly $700 million) on board stranded off the coast of Venezuela because they cannot find buyers for the oil thanks to American-led sanctions.  Here is a map from Marine Traffic showing how many tankers are located offshore Venezuela:

4.) Freezing of Financial Assets - Approximately $3.2 billion of Venezuela's overseas assets are frozen and diplomatic pressure by the United States has made it difficult for Venezuela to sell its gold.  Here is a graphic showing Venezuela's gold reserves and how they have declined as rounds of sanctions took hold of its economy:

According to Kitco, the Maduro government was forced to sell off a substantial part of Venezuela's gold reserves in 2018 to keep the government running, thanks to the negative impact of sanctions on its economy.  The country still has 161.22 tonnes of gold in reserve, less than half of its total reserves of 357 tonnes in the mid-2000s but diplomatic pressure killed a recent sale of 15 tonnes of gold to the United Arab Emirates.   In 2018, Venezuela produced 23 tonnes of gold so, provided that its mines continue to operate, if it can sell its gold internationally, the current government can inject some life into its economy.  

Here is another take on Venezuela's economy from the Department of State that they have not removed from their website:

"The economy is quickly spiraling downward. Inflation is projected to hit 1 million percent by the end of 2018 and the minimum monthly wage is equal to about $1 on the black market. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, but mismanagement of the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, has resulted in significant deterioration of infrastructure and production capacity. What was once one of Latin America’s strongest economies is now unable to support itself." (my bolds)

Thanks to sanctions, that is true.

5.) Health Care Provision - Thanks to American largesse, a total of 6000 Venezuelans benefitted from medical care provided at 18 health fairs held in over 15 communities.  While this may seem laudable, out of a population of 32 million people, it represents a paltry 0.019 percent of the population.  The $71 million spent on development and humanitarian assistance since Fiscal 2017 has certainly done very little given this quote from what still does appear on State's website under Venezuela:

"As a result of the political and economic crises, there is a growing humanitarian crisis. Unable to choose their government at the ballot box, Venezuelans are using their feet to vote. More than two million Venezuelans have left their country since 2016 and nearly 280,000 have applied for asylum globally since 2014. Within the country, a severe shortage of food and medical supplies has resulted in the average Venezuelan losing 24 pounds and around 90 percent of hospitals are without basic medical necessities. People in Venezuela are facing disrupted water and sanitation services and there are serious public health concerns following outbreaks of once eradicated diseases in the region. In July 2018, nurses went on strike for almost a month demanding provisions and supplies for the hospitals." (my bold)

Washington is extremely proud of its "nation rebuilding at any cost" achievements in Venezuela but isn't too anxious to let us know just how brutal they are as shown in this document which was removed from the Department of State website.  The fact that tens of millions of Venezuelas are suffering because of the American-led sanctions regime seems to not bother either Mike Pompeo or John Bolton; they are just standing in the way of getting the job of redesigning Venezuela in America's image.

The New York Times - Its Anti-Maduro Bias is Showing

Since the 2016 election, the watchword has been "fake news".  While all news isn't "fake", there is a great deal of media bias that provides readers or listeners with a narrative that is far from unbiased.  Such was the case in a recent New York Times article as you will see in this posting.

Here is a brief examination of the NYT article/video on regime change and tyranny under Maduro in Venezuela entitled "What My Fellow Liberals Don't Get About Venezuela" by Venezuelan - American Joanna Hausmann.  Here is the video:

Ms. Hausmann opens by noting the following:

"There is total chaos in Venezuela.  Hunger, lack of medicine and latest, nearly the whole country had a blackout."

Later in the video she discusses Venezuela's hyperinflation, how its lack of access to medicine has reduced Venezuelans' life expectancy by 3.6 years (an interesting calculation) and how the nation suffers from a Syria-like refugee crisis. 

She goes on to note that the Trump Administration is considering options including military intervention and goes on to note that the political left in America, including a number of celebrities and other influential Americans, are pushing back, trying to prevent the inevitable nation rebuilding interference in Venezuela that has become the narrative in Washington for the past three administrations.  She shows a video clip where Bernie Sanders is confronted by Wolf Blitzer about his unwillingness to call Maduro a dictator as well as a brief clip showing Maduro telling Donald Trump to keep "hands off Venezuela immediately". 

She continues to philosophize about Donald Trump's affinity for dictators but notes that Venezuela suffers at the hands of a tyrannical dictator.  She notes that the anti-Trump interference movement of America's left is dangerous because the are glorifying a "brutal dictator" and "promoting inaction" and that these two factors are the worst combination for ordinary Venezuelans.

She concludes that the key to the problem is for the United States to support Venezuela's efforts to restore its democracy and that 50 nations and the United States have recognized Juan Guiado as the new interim president.  She states that Guaido is not an American right wing puppet leading an illegitimate coup but a social democrat appointed by the National Assembly, the only remaining democratically elected institution left in Venezuela.  According to her, his job is to ensure free and fair elections.

With her op-ed video in mind, let's look at bit further at Ms. Hausmann and her connection to Venezuela.  It just so happens that Ms. Hausmann's father, Ricardo Hausmann an economist from Harvard was appointed by Juan Gauido as Venezuela's representative to the Inter-American Development Bank in early March 2019 as shown here:

One might almost think that there was some pro-Guaido bias on Ms. Hausmann's part based on her family connections to the Guaido "government-in-waiting".  Here's what she had to say when confronted about the family connection with the appointed Venezuelan leader on her Twitter account:

It's wonderful that she is proud of her father, isn't it?  That, however, is not the point.

What is most interesting about this piece by Ms. Hausmann is that it flies right in the face of the editorial standards set out by the New York Times.  Here's what the Times says about family relationships under the "Sorting Out Family Ties" section of its editorial standards:

"In a day when most families balance two careers, the legitimate activities of companions, spouses and other relatives can sometimes create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts. They can crop up in civic or political life, professional pursuits and financial activity. A spouse or companion who runs for public office would obviously create the appearance of conflict for a political reporter or an editor involved in election coverage. A brother or a daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.

To avoid such conflicts, staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgments about them. For similar reasons, staff members should not recruit or directly supervise family members or close friends. Some exceptions are permissible — in a foreign bureau, for instance, where a married couple form a team, or in the case of an article by a food writer profiling her brother the Yankee star, where the kinship is of genuine news interest." (my bolds)

Here's what it says under the "Disclosure of Possible Conflicts":

"Staff members must be sensitive to these possibilities. Any staff member who sees a potential for conflict or a threat to the paper’s reputation in the activities of spouse, friends or relatives must discuss the situation with his or her supervising editor and the standards editor or the deputy editorial page editor.

In some cases, disclosure is enough. But if The Times considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk — to avoid the appearance of conflict."

We have no idea whether Ms. Hausmann reported the conflict between her op-ed video and her father's appointment by the man that she is clearly promoting as the new leader of Venezuela.  Nonetheless, it would appear, at the very least, that the New York Times was remiss in allowing her to post a piece of any type that was linked to her father since it is a direct violation of the "Sorting Out Family Ties" section of its editorial policy.

This should be of concern to all of us.  While everyone is aware of the existence of fake news, we are less aware of how editorial conflicts of interest can be used to sway public opinion, particularly in the case of a highly influential and widely read newspaper like the New York Times.  It is bias of this type that can lead both readers and voters into believing that Washington should declare war on Venezuela because an "undeclared insider" whose family stands to benefit from military action against the existing government says so.

Syria - A Template for a War in Venezuela

Updated October 2019

On April 4, 2019, Syria's much beleaguered President Bashar al-Assad met with Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza in Damascus.  According to SANA (the Syrian Arab News Agency), the two gentlemen discussed issues facing both nations, particularly how the West and the United States was meddling in their nations.  Mr. Arreaza's meeting with Bashar al-Assad followed a meeting in Beirut with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

Here is the news report in its entirety:

During the meeting, President al-Assad noted that "the U.S. goal is hegemony over countries and appropriation of their sovereignty in violation of international law" and that the "...standard is to put pressure on countries that disagree with (the U.S.) agenda".  Here is a tweet from SMM Syria quoting Syria's president:

Here is a tweet from Mr. Arreaza regarding the meeting with Bashar al-Assad:

The Deputy Prime Minister of Syria, Walid al-Moallem also met with Mr. Arreaza as shown here:

The recurring theme of the meetings in Syria revolved around America's attempts to exert its power to force nations to succumb to its ideal model for democracy through the use of military intervention and economic sanctions, despite the fact that these actions are in direct contravention of international law as stated in the United Nations Charter Article 2 (3) and 2(4) as quoted here:

"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

As an aside, Venezuela has also backed Syria on Washington's recent announcement of the "Israelification" of the Golan Heights as reported on Venezuela's Foreign Ministry website here:

"Venezuela rejects U.S. intent to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over Golan Heights

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela categorically rejects the Donald Trump’s government intention of recognizing Israel’s full sovereignty over the Syrian territory of Golan Heights, currently under Israeli military occupation, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and disregarding the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law.

As if harm and destruction created over the past decades in the Middle East by the United States governments were not enough; Donald Trump seeks to continue destabilizing the region by assaulting the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Syrian people, whose displacement by Israel has been condemned by the international community.

Through these actions, once again, the U.S. government mocks international law, multilateralism and peace, and attempts to conceal the criminal policy of the State of Israel.

Venezuela reiterates its conviction that the defense of peace and strict adherence to international law should be the only acceptable formula to solve conflicts, and condemns the irresponsible and blatant Trump’s administration attempts of inciting more violence and confrontation.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reiterates its support and solidarity with the People and government of the Syrian Arab Republic in its call for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights territories."

Isn't it interesting how Washington's global nation rebuilding agenda drives nations that would otherwise have little in common into each other's "arms"?  Venezuela and Syria may be world's apart when it comes to culture but the actions of the United States have driven them together.  At the very least, it appears that the current civil unrest in Venezuela is following the pattern set by Syria back in 2011 and that it is part of America's new template for starting a regional war which will allow it to meet its global hegemonic agenda.

The Close Connection Between Russia and Venezuela

The Administration condemns Nicolas Maduro’s continued use of foreign military personnel in his attempt to remain in power, including the introduction of Russian military personnel and equipment into Venezuela.  Maduro will only use this military support to further repress the people of Venezuela; perpetuate the economic crisis that has destroyed Venezuela’s economy; and endanger regional stability.  We call on the Venezuelan military to uphold its constitutional duty to protect the citizens of Venezuela.

We strongly caution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations.  We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region.  We will continue to defend and protect the interests of the United States, and those of our partners in the Western Hemisphere, which are rooted in a shared respect for liberty, security, and the rule of law.

...and this discussion about the situation in Venezuela between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo which received very little coverage in the Western mainstream media:

Here is Russia's response to Washington's demands:

"As to the statements by the US President and Secretary of State, we regard them as an arrogant attempt to dictate to two sovereign states the way they should build their relations. I would like to remind you that proconsuls were appointed in Ancient Rome to govern the provinces. Neither Russia nor Venezuela is a US province.

This underlies the basic difference between nations abiding by international law – and there are too many to list them all – and the group of nations who make up pretexts for interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

Regarding Washington’s idea of who we “must” support in Venezuela. Russia supports the legitimate authorities. This phrase contains two key words – legitimate and authorities. It is legitimate because only Venezuela’s people have the right to elect their leaders in accordance with the national Constitution. If there are other interpretations, we would like to ask the US a carefully worded question: What legal grounds does the US have to make statements like the ones made in the last 24 hours? The Venezuelan people made their choice...

The authorities – because there are no authorities in Venezuela except President Nicolas Maduro’s government. Mr Guaido can claim to be whoever he wants...

By denying Nicolas Maduro the right and obligations of authority, Washington and its proxies are denying the people of Venezuela “here and now” the right to live in a country which has authorities."

The subject of the conversation between the two gentlemen also received coverage on the Government of Venezuela's website for its Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs as shown here:

With this back and forth in mind, let's look at how the relationship between Russia and Venezuela is playing out given Washington's ongoing attempts to isolate Venezuela from its potential partner or partners.

In early December 2018, Nicolas Maduro and Vladimir Putin met Russia where deals were signed between the two leaders, securing investments from Russia in Venezuela's gold and oil sectors.  Contracts were signed for investments of more than $5 billion in Venezuela's oil industry with the goal of increasing the nation's oil production which has done this:

As well, an additional investment of $1 billion is guaranteed for Venezuela's gold sector.  Gold is an important source of hard currency for Venezuela as oil revenues dry up thanks to American-led sanctions.  

As background, it is important to keep in mind that Rosneft, Russia's national oil company owns two offshore gas fields in Venezuela as well as interests in assets that total more than 150 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.  It is the largest oil and second largest gas producer in Venezuela.  As well, Rosneft is owned more than $6 billion by Venezuela.  In addition, Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, owed Rosneft $2.3 billion at the end of the fourth quarter 2018, down from $3.1 billion at the end of the previous quarter.  Intergovernmental debt between Russia and Venezuela was restructured in November 2018.  Under the terms of the restructuring, Venezuela which was technically in default on its Russia debt, will be allowed to pay back the debt over a ten-year period with minimal payments over the next six years.  

According to Russian news agency Tass, Russia and Venezuela are slated to sign more than 20 cooperation agreements in April 2019 as shown here:

These agreements will cover the economy, trade, culture, energy and education.

In addition, there are close ties between the two nations when it comes to Venezuela's overall economy.  Here is a quote from a paper entitled Russian-Venezuelan Relationship at a Crossroads by Vladimir Rouvinski at the Wilson Center:

"In late October 2018, Russia sent a team of experts to Caracas from its Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Development, Russian Central Bank, Federal Tax Service, and a number of other ministries and departments.41 According to official sources, the Venezuelan government requested the presence of senior officials of the Russian ministries in order “to exchange experiences in the field of economic reform.” The inter-departmental expert group public mission was to assist the government of Venezuela in the “development of measures in the field of economic management in a crisis situation.” The Russian experts were to have access to all the necessary information and to remain in Caracas for several months. The head of the mission, Sergei Storchak, is known for his role in the successful negotiations of Russia’s Soviet- era debt to the Paris Club and is considered a key Russian expert in the area of external debt.

At about the same time as the Russian experts arrived in the Venezuelan capital, reports appeared indicating that Russia’s Evrofinance Mosnarbank was helping Venezuela to work around U.S. financial sanctions.42 The bank in question is a joint venture owned by the Fondo de Desarrollo Nacional SA. of Venezuela and two other Russian banks (one of them belonging to Gazprom), and has Russian and Venezuelan nationals on its governing board. In March 2018, it became first international financial institution to back the Venezuelan cryptocurrency, the petro. The government of Nicolás Maduro soon began advising Venezuelan companies to conduct all international transactions via Moscow’s Evorfinance Mosnarbank.

Taking into account the difficulties faced by Venezuela’s chavista government and Russia’s combined investment in Venezuela of up to $20 billion.  Vladimir Putin’s government does not appear to view losing its investment as an acceptable.  The value of the Bolivarian Republic for Russia American nation for Moscow is is not measured in terms of money alone. There are other interests in play relating to two fundamental aspects of post-Cold war Russian relations with Venezuela. The first is Russia’s recognition that the primary value of the South American nation for the regime in Moscow is its geographical proximity to the United States. The second is an unusual sense of comradeship and trust developed by an important part of the Russian political elite towards Venezuela that dates back to the reign of Hugo Chávez and has continued during the rule of Nicolás Maduro." (bolds mine)

As you can see, there is a very close relationship between Russia and Venezuela, a relationship that will not disappear simply because Washington wishes it to end.  As well as a relationship with Russia, Venezuela also has another key ally as shown here:

It is quite clear that China stands on the side of the Maduro-led government and that the situation should not be resolved by any external forces, namely, Washington.

In the current global geopolitical environment where two nations are poised to impact the current unipolar reality, the situation in Venezuela will prove to be a testing ground with Washington battling for control of Venezuela with two very determined world powers that stand in their way.

Moving the Goalposts - Washington's Agenda for Venezuela

At a recent press briefing, Elliot Abrams, America's Special Representative for Venezuela, clearly laid out how Washington continues to manipulate its own narrative on the Venezuela issue.  In this posting, we'll start by looking at Venezuela's constitutional requirements for relieving its president from duty and follow by looking at the key exchange in the press briefing which clearly outlines how the Trump Administration is changing the goalposts when it comes to pushing Maduro out of office and shoving Juan Guaido into the vacancy.

Let's start by looking back to January 23, 2019.  On that day, the president of Venezuela's National Assembly, Juan Guiado, declared that he was assuming the office of the presidency of the nation on an interim basis on the basis of Article 233 of Venezuela's Constitution from 1999 which reads as follows:

"Absolute faults of the President of the Republic: death, resignation, dismissal decreed by the Supreme Court of Justice, permanent physical or mental incapacity certified by a medical board appointed by the Supreme Court of Justice and with the approval of the National Assembly, the abandonment of the office, declared by the National Assembly, as well as the popular revocation of its mandate.

When there is an absolute lack of the President-elect or President-elect before taking office, a new universal, direct and secret election shall be held within the following thirty consecutive days. While the new President is elected and takes office, the President of the National Assembly will be in charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

When there is an absolute lack of the President of the Republic during the first four years of the constitutional period, a new universal and direct election shall be held within the following thirty consecutive days. While the new President is elected and takes office, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President will be in charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

In the previous cases, the new President will complete the corresponding constitutional period.

If the absolute lack occurs during the last two years of the constitutional period, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President shall assume the Presidency of the Republic until the completion thereof." (my bold)

Note that there are specific requirements to meet the requirement of "absolute absence" of the elected president which is required to appoint his/her replacement as I have highlighted above.  When there is an absolute lack of a President, a new universal (i.e. nationwide) election is to be held within 30 consecutive days.  In the current situation, with Juan Guaido appointing himself as the nation's president on January 23, 2019, the universal election should have been held no later than February 22, 2019.  Unfortunately for the United States and Mr. Guaido, current President Nicolas Maduro has not seen fit to resign his office which has greatly complicated the issue.  The only solution to the dilemma appears to be one that was recently offered by Elliot Abrams, Donald Trump's hand-picked Special Envoy to Venezuela as I noted above.  Let's look at the key exchange which clearly outlines how the Trump Administration is moving the goalposts to suit its own ultimate plans for Venezuela when it comes to pushing Maduro out of office and shoving Juan Guaido into the vacancy.

Here is the question that was asked by the representative for the Washington Post:

"…Could you explain to us the article (Article 233 as outlined above) under which Mr. Guaido declared himself president? It is said that it has expired last month. Could you explain that to us? What is the --"

Here is Mr. Abrams' answer and the continuing exchange:

"As to the Venezuelan constitution, the National Assembly has passed a resolution that states that that 30-day period of interim presidency will not start ending or counting until the day Nicolas Maduro leaves power. So the 30 days doesn’t start now, it starts after Maduro. And they – that’s a resolution of the National Assembly.

QUESTION: When did they – they did that after he --

MR ABRAMS: They did that – this is roughly a month ago. We could try to find the date for you.

QUESTION: When he was – when he was – took the mantle of interim president, that wasn’t there.

MR ABRAMS: Yes, when – that’s correct. And so people --

QUESTION: Can you do that ex post facto like that?

MR ABRAMS: When people ask a question how do --

QUESTION: That seems to be like saying I was elected for four years to be president, and then two years in you change the rules so that your term didn’t start – hasn’t even started yet. How does that happen?

MR ABRAMS: Well, you don’t get a vote because you’re not in the National Assembly.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t. You’re not in the National Assembly either.

QUESTION: If it matters, does the U.S. view that as constitutional under their system?

MR ABRAMS: Yes. I mean, we’re taking the – the National Assembly is the only legitimate democratic institution left in Venezuela, and their interpretation of the constitution, as you know, is that as of the date of this alleged term for Maduro, the presidency is vacant. But they have also said that that 30-day period starts when Maduro goes.

QUESTION: So Juan Guaido is the interim president of an interim that doesn’t exist yet?

MR ABRAMS: The 30-day end to his interim presidency starts counting. Because he’s not in power, that’s the problem. Maduro is still there. So they have decided that they will count that from when he actually is in power and Maduro’s gone. I think it’s logical.

QUESTION: So then he really isn’t interim president, then?

MR ABRAMS: He is interim president, but he’s not --

QUESTION: With no power.

MR ABRAMS: -- able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.

QUESTION: So their interpretation is that until and unless he actually has the power to run the country, he’s not actually the interim president?

MR ABRAMS: No. Their interpretation is that the constitution requires a 30-day interim period, but it – those 30 days should not be counted while Maduro is still there exercising the powers of his former office."

Apparently, as we can see from Mr. Abrams' tap dancing, re-engineering a nation in Washington's preferred image is not as simple as one might hope.  Once again, the narrative supersedes the facts and Washington’s narrative does not fit with what is really happening on the ground in Venezuela. That said, if you move the narrative goalposts often enough, eventually you might get something right.