Rubio on Trump's comments about Machado

Thank you. We started this operation on September 2 with the attack on Venezuelans and boats in open waters. And now, we're nearly five months in. Next week is five months. Finally, a public hearing. Wow. How novel. Finally, a public hearing in the Senate or House. This is the first public hearing we've had. 200 folks who are on secret designated combatant lists have been killed. US troops have been injured. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, an armada amassed, the announcement of a new Monroe Doctrine, which does not land well in the Americas. Democrats have been asking over and over again, can we have a public hearing? Can we share what we know with the American public? Finally, a public hearing. But even that hearing is constrained. I'd like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about the strikes on boats in international waters. But I can't because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting. I can't tell you why the domestic rationale is hollow and the international rationale is hollow. I can't tell you why the rationale for attacking Venezuela is hollow, because again, the rationale has been shared with us in a closed setting. I can't share with you the grim details of the murder of shipwrecked survivors in open waters that we all know, because we've seen the videos, and we've questioned the US military officials involved about legality, because the administration will not release that publicly. They released the boat strike videos publicly. But they hid the second strike that killed struggling shipwreck survivors, even from Congress, for nearly three months. But I can't really talk to you about it. I can't talk to you about the weakness of the targeting criteria being used to attack boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. I would encourage any colleague, if you have not, go to the classified setting and ask for a briefing on each strike and ask this question, what was the evidence that there were narcotics on that craft? You will be very surprised if you ask that question about every strike. And so even in this first public hearing, five months in, there's a lot we can't talk about. If it was such a righteous operation, why is the administration and the majority in the Senate so jealously protecting the details about it from being revealed to the American public? I have Virginians deployed in this operation. I can't answer their families' questions. Thank God we're having a public hearing five months in. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Mr. Secretary, who won the July 2024 Venezuelan presidential election? Oh, I think the whole world would acknowledge it was a Edmundo González. Who lost that election?

Maduro. And his vice president, Delcy Rodríguez. Now, you have made the decision, the administration has made the decision, in the aftermath of the attack that Delcy Rodríguez should be leading the country. Let me read something that President Trump said about her on January 14, about Delcy Rodríguez, who lost the election with Maduro. We just had a great conversation today, and she's a terrific person. She's somebody that we have worked with very well. Let me tell you what Delcy Rodríguez said the day after Venezuela was attacked. "Governments around the world are simply shocked that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones." What the hell did Delcy Rodríguez mean when she said this attack had Zionist undertones? I'm assuming you have no idea. Oh, I have an idea what you meant. What's the question? What did she mean when she says this attack has Zionist undertones? Look, I have to answer. But let me answer it in a broader context. No one here is telling you that this is what we want to see in the long term. This is not a campaign to leave in place the system that's currently in place.

Let me switch. But we either have-- no, no, but I mean, the criticism of us is-- go ahead. No, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm ready to switch now to talk about somebody that you know well--

I thought you raised an important point. If I can get back to it, I will. --you know well and respect, María Corina Machado. Here's what President Trump said about her, "Won the Nobel Prize in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela. I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country. She's a very nice woman. But she doesn't have the respect." What did President Trump mean by that? Yeah. First of all, I've known María Corina for probably 12 years, 13 years.

I know you have. I've dealt with her probably more than anybody-- as much as anybody on this committee has, for certain. And I'll be meeting with her today, in fact. And we met with her a couple of weeks ago. So here's the reality, though, and I think what the president was pointing to-- and I think María Karina would acknowledge this. The only way--

I talked to her last week. She was very disappointed in those comments, and so were Venezuelans in my state.

She didn't share that with me or with us. But I will tell this to you, what the president is acknowledging, is that today, as it stands, whether we like it or not, the elements of control in that country, the people with the guns, the people that control the guns and the institutions of government there, are in the hands of this regime. So we either-- on the one hand, we're getting criticized. Some people are saying, we don't want regime change. On the other hand, we're being criticized for not undertaking regime change.

Mr. Secretary-- What we're trying to trigger here is a process of stabilization, recovery, and transition to something where María Corina and others can be a part of. And that's what we're working toward.

You have respect for her, don't you?

Sure. Great. My last question is this. And so does the president, by the way. He met with her. They had a great meeting. And he actually spoke to her last week.

Here's what he said. Here's what he said after that meeting. "We're talking to her, and maybe we can get her involved in some way. I'd love to be able to do that. Maybe we can do that." We'll set the terms for this Nobel Prize winner having a leadership role. Last question is this. You talked about the speech in Davos. Here's something the president said in Davos. "I'm helping NATO until the last few days. When I told them about Iceland, they loved me. They're not here for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland is already cost us a lot of money." The president repeatedly mistook Iceland for Greenland. We're not mad at Iceland. They haven't cost us any money. The president just mistook the two countries for each other, correct? Yeah, he meant to say Greenland. But I think we're all familiar with the presidents that have verbal stumbles. We've had presidents like that before. Some made a lot more than this one.

Nice try. Thanks.