Former Venezuelan intelligence chief pleads guilty to US drug charges
Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, AKA 'El Pollo' or 'The Chicken', was the director of Venezuela's military intelligence under presidents Hugo Chávez and Maduro. On Wednesday, days before his trial was set to begin, he pleaded guilty to four federal counts, related to accusations that he helped lead a drug-trafficking group within the Venezuelan government.
'Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios was once one of the most powerful men in Venezuela. For years, he and other officials … used cocaine as a weapon – flooding New York and other American cities with poison,' said US attorney Jay Clayton.
Carvajal turned against Maduro in 2019 and supported a failed coup that year led by the opposition leader Juan Guaidó. Maduro stayed in power but the Trump administration at the time recognized Guaidó as the legitimate leader of the country.
Despite his opposition to Maduro, Carvajal was already under investigation by the US government: in 2020, the justice department released an indictment against him and other top Venezuelan leaders – including Maduro himself – accusing them of narco-terrorism crimes and of running the Cartel of the Suns. He was eventually extradited to the US from Spain in 2023.
The US indictment alleges that from 1999 through 2020, Maduro, Carvajal and top government officials 'participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy' between the Cartel of the Suns and the former Colombian rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), to traffic cocaine to the US. The Farc was previously classified as a terrorist organization by the US government before most of its members laid down their weapons in a historic 2016 peace process.
Although the US government claims the Cartel of the Suns is a structured and government-run drug-trafficking group, analysts claim that it is more of a 'network of networks' of various drug-trafficking groups protected by elements within the Venezuelan state.
The Miami Herald, citing unnamed sources, reported that Carvajal was potentially collaborating with the US government to provide information about Maduro's drug-trafficking activities, the Tren de Aragua gang and Venezuela's ties to Iran.
Details of his potential collaboration may be revealed during his sentencing hearing in October. He is facing life in prison for each count.
Co-defendants in the Cartel of the Suns case include Maduro, the Venezuelan interior minister and two former Farc leaders –including one who was killed in a mysterious operation by the Colombian military.
As one of the last Latin America-related acts of the Biden administration this January, the US government raised its bounty for Maduro and his interior minister to $25m, related to the narco-terrorism case.
One of Carvajal's co-defendants was sentenced last year to more than 21 years in prison. Cliver Alcalá , a former Venezuelan general who opposed Maduro, pleaded guilty in 2023 for providing support to the Farc.
This case has the potential to uncover details of US operations in Venezuela, including information about alleged US-backed attempts to oust Maduro.
In a letter to the New York court, Alcalá's attorneys have claimed that the Central Intelligence Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration, and national security council were aware of a fumbled 2020 plot to overthrow Maduro.
That failed plot, deemed the Bay of Piglets, was foiled by Venezuelan security forces. Government officials arrested a number Venezuelan dissidents and two American former Green Berets, working as mercenaries for Silvercorp, a US security firm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Bolivia will choose a new president but environmental activists see little hope of progress
Bolivia's upcoming presidential election will mark a shift from nearly two decades of socialist rule, but many Indigenous and environmental leaders doubt it will bring progress in stopping deforestation, fires or pollution in the Amazon. The Oct. 19 runoff pits centrist Sen. Rodrigo Paz against right-wing former president Jorge 'Tuto' Quiroga — two contenders promising change but rooted in an economic model critics say has long fueled environmental damage in one of South America's most biodiverse nations. The Amazon spans nine countries and plays a crucial role in absorbing carbon and regulating climate patterns worldwide. Approximately 8% of the Amazon is in Bolivia. Scientists warn that deforestation is pushing parts of the forest toward a tipping point where it could shift into savanna. The election feels like a choice between two threats, according to Ruth Alipaz Cuqui, coordinator of the Indigenous alliance CONTIOCAP and a member of the Uchupiamona community. She said governments of all stripes have ignored Indigenous well-being. 'Agreements are signed, commitments are made, laws and decrees are passed, but in the territory there is absolutely nothing applied," she said. Quiroga's campaign told The Associated Press he would tighten controls on forest fires, promote sustainable agriculture, expand biofuel production, and encourage reforestation to curb high deforestation rates. He also calls for using carbon and green bonds — tools to raise money to fund conservation efforts. Paz's team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Environment has paid a price for economic policies Evo Morales — Bolivia's first Indigenous president — often invoked Pachamama, the Indigenous concept of Mother Earth as a living being that sustains life, and rose to power by championing Indigenous rights and environmental protection. But his socialist governments also expanded exports of soy, beef, gas and minerals to fund social programs. And his administration allied with agribusiness and ranching elites, loosened land-clearing restrictions and promoted infrastructure projects that opened new frontiers in the Amazon. Bolivia is one of the Amazon basin's fastest-deforesting countries. Forest loss spiked in 2019, when Morales eased burning rules and legalized agricultural clearing, fueling massive wildfires that wiped out nearly a million hectares (about 3,860 square miles). The destruction has continued as cattle ranching, soy farming, logging and mining push deeper into Indigenous lands. In 2024, fires scorched more than 10 million hectares — about 38,600 square miles, or roughly the size of Iceland — and Bolivia recorded the world's second-highest tropical primary forest loss after Brazil, according to Global Forest Watch. Vincent Vos, a Dutch-Bolivian researcher based in the Amazonian department of Beni, said communities are confronting overlapping crises. 'Santa Cruz has already lost 68% of their water reserves… we've got 30% less rainfall than a decade ago,' he said. 'Our fish is really completely contaminated by mercury already and people are really suffering from high levels of mercury poisoning.' Campaign hasn't centered on environmental issues While environmental issues have not been a central focus of the campaign, both candidates have outlined some proposals. Paz has proposed a $15 billion 'green government' funded by carbon credits, which can be generated from projects like forest-planting that aim to reduce emissions; tighter controls on agricultural burns and a crackdown on illegal gold mining. Quiroga vows to make Bolivia a leader in decarbonization, protect parks, restore fire-hit ecosystems, and expand agriculture 'appropriately' — a stance critics warn could still spur deforestation. Nick Fromherz, a Bolivian-based adjunct professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland who specializes in Latin American environmental law, said both candidates have spoken broadly about fighting wildfires and managing the agricultural frontier. But they've offered few solutions to less visible crises like mercury contamination from gold mining, he said. Mercury, widely used in gold mining, flows into rivers and contaminates fish, a dietary staple for Amazonian communities. Studies have found alarmingly high mercury levels in people living along Bolivian rivers, echoing concerns across the Amazon basin. For Stasiek Czaplicki, a Bolivian environmental economist who has studied forest policies, the danger lies not only in policy direction but in the state's ability to enforce protections. He said Quiroga 'would be worst for the institutions that defend the environment.' He cited proposals to end collective Indigenous land titles — opening them to private sales — and to expand soy and cattle production in the east. Critics warn those moves would accelerate deforestation and weaken agencies tasked with curbing it. Local costs, global consequences Fromherz said environmental concerns are still viewed as secondary in Bolivia's politics, even as they shape the lives of millions. For Vos, the gap between rhetoric and reality is measured in disappearing rivers, vanishing fish and poisoned communities. 'People are really suffering,' Vos said. Alipaz says years of unmet commitments have left the Amazon´s communities doubtful that the election will bring significant change. 'What happens to us is that we are stripped of our territory, poisoned with smoke and mercury, and also deprived of the means of life such as water, soil, and food,' Alipaz said. 'The life of Indigenous peoples in Bolivia has gone from bad to worse. We will continue defending. It's not just our lives, it is our very existence that is at stake.' ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
The millionaire Marxist who became a political problem for the BBC
Sally Rooney once argued that writers have more influence than they deserve. 'Novelists are given too much cultural prominence,' she said in an interview with The New Yorker in 2018. 'I know you could point out they're really not given a lot of prominence but… it's still too much.' And yet, surely, a prominent voice and an outsized cultural heft were exactly what Rooney was banking on when she wrote a piece in The Irish Times last weekend saying that she would be using funds generated by the sale of her books and their BBC adaptations to support Palestine Action, which has been proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK. 'If the British state considers this 'terrorism', then perhaps it should investigate the shady organisations that continue to promote my work and fund my activities, such as WHSmith and the BBC,' was one of the 34-year-old's many controversial lines. A self-proclaimed Marxist, Rooney has frequently been outspoken on abortion rights, housing reform and climate change. But it is her stance on Palestine that has garnered the most coverage. In 2021 she made headlines around the world after rejecting an offer from an Israeli publisher to translate her third book, Beautiful World, Where Are You, into Hebrew (despite the company already having translated her first two) owing to her views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Until now, the Ireland-based author's interventions have not hindered her career. But given the immediate backlash to her most recent pronouncement – which means she could now face legal proceedings should she travel to the UK – has she finally overstepped the mark? Some certainly appear to think so. The Campaign Against Antisemitism has denounced Rooney's actions as 'utterly indefensible', accusing her of clearly stating her intent to channel money 'towards a group that… terrorised the Jewish community'. 'Platforms and publishers profiting from her work must urgently review their relationship with her, as they now risk enabling the flow of funds to a terrorist organisation,' the group said in a statement earlier this week, adding that it intended to pursue private prosecution if the pro-Palestinian writer travels to Britain and authorities fail to take action of their own. For those connected to her work, Rooney's stance clearly presents something of a conundrum. On the one hand, she is one of the most revered and most profitable novelists of her generation, and the darling of the Left-leaning publishing scene – on the other, alienating a significant proportion of the market is rarely a move any finance department favours. One publishing insider says Rooney's agents' 'hearts will be sinking'. A top London literary agent goes further still: 'If an author wrote a piece saying they were planning to fund Hamas, we would be appalled. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. I have had authors who have turned down prizes because they disagree with the sponsors, but I have never heard of a situation where someone is actively supporting an illegal organisation – she's implicating a lot of people without realising it.' The agent believes Rooney's British publishing house, Faber & Faber, will be forced to make a statement. 'I imagine they will want to take an agnostic view on this, as it is a no-win for them. If they support this, there may be legal issues, but if they say nothing, they are allowing it to be unchallenged that they are taking money… and giving it to someone funding an outlawed organisation.' Rooney's net worth is reported to total at least £10m, owing to her runaway success in recent years. At just 24 – then a Trinity College Dublin graduate and European champion debater – she was taken on by the prestigious Wylie Agency and over the past decade she has been lauded with a string of awards. In the UK and Ireland alone she has sold more than six million copies of her four novels, Conversations with Friends, Normal People, Beautiful World, Where Are You and Intermezzo, which have been translated into 40 languages and adapted into some of the 2020s' most beloved television shows. In other words:Rooney may be a Marxist, but she is also thought to be one of the richest young writers in the world. Today she still lives in the west of Ireland, a few miles from where she grew up, and remains close to her parents. Both are committed socialists, and Rooney has spoken about how she worries that her own dazzling career borders on the frivolous. 'There is a part of me that will never be happy knowing that I am just writing entertainment, making decorative aesthetic objects at a time of historical crisis,' she once told the Irish Independent. 'But I am not good at anything else.' Perhaps that sense of concern has motivated her forays into hot-button issues. Whatever her motivations, at home, Rooney's stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is a popular one: Ireland is – by and large – very pro-Palestine (and has not proscribed Palestine Action). But in the UK and the US, where her major publishing houses are based, she is causing problems not only for herself but for people associated with her work. This includes editors and producers, and may yet see A-list actors such as Paul Mescal and Daisy Edgar-Jones, who had break-out roles in the BBC adaption of Normal People, drawn into the controversy. Like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe from the Harry Potter franchise – who stood against JK Rowling and her stance on the trans debate – they can be expected to face uncomfortable questions about where they themselves stand on this subject in the days to come. As for her relationships within the industry, Rooney will receive a lot of support in part because of her sales record. 'If Sally Rooney were a failure then the question would be different,' says literary agent David Godwin. 'But publishing houses, like all businesses, are always tinged with self-interest – they're shameless in many ways, and she sells so many copies. I can't imagine a situation where they wouldn't publish her. That gives her a lot of freedom.' Still, he agrees that most executives would prefer her not to be quite so open about her beliefs. ' When it comes to Palestine, publishers are much more frightened these days,' he says, 'and they are more inclined to stay far away from controversy. Publishing was once very individualistic and authors were left to say what they wanted, but things are more corporate now and people are conscious of what could create a backlash.' Equally, others note that Rooney isn't the most profitable writer on the circuit – and that she can't always expect unwavering support from publishers. 'She sells a lot of books, but she's not the biggest author out there,' says another literary insider. 'She's the biggest author for Faber, and she's culturally significant, but there are many authors in front of her in terms of sales. Richard Osman sells far more books than she does.' More than the response from readers (one agent claims most of her fans will already be aware of her beliefs and so are unlikely to suddenly stop buying her books), her editors will be concerned about Rooney's ability to promote future works. 'I would be worried about whether she would be able to travel to the UK easily,' says one. 'A book tour is an essential way of getting sales up – can she legally come here now?' And then there is the question of America, where entering the top 10 means earning millions of dollars but where the debate over the future of Israel is even more fraught than it is in Britain. Jessa Crispin, a US-based author and the editor-in-chief of the literary webzine Bookslut, says Rooney may ultimately emerge unscathed. 'Sally Rooney is one of the few writers who sells enough worldwide to have a real power to make a stand within publishing,' she says. 'She makes her publisher a lot of money, it seems, so if she doesn't want to be published in Israel or translated into Hebrew, they will want to go along with that to keep her happy.' And luckily for Rooney, the publishing industry on both sides of the Atlantic tends to be far more Left-leaning than the general public. 'I think her readership is probably with her,' says Christian Lorentzen, a US-based writer and critic. 'I think she's brave and admirable and righteous on this question, and it might even increase her sales, but I do not think at all that she's acting cynically. She's an idealist and it's to her credit.' Television and film, however, is a different story. For authors, that's where the real money usually lies – and Rooney must be aware that Hollywood takes a stronger view on this debate than most booksellers. 'The likes of Netflix and other corporate people will evaluate the risk versus the reward of working with her from now on,' says Mark Borkowski, a British PR executive and author with an interest in reputation and crisis management. 'By doing this she sacrifices a lot of potential relationships in Hollywood – which is very supportive of the Jewish cause. From now on, she will be fairly Marmite in terms of deals, which will shrink her commercial ecosystem.' As for the BBC – which is closely linked to Rooney after adapting two of her novels and which she singled out in her editorial – it may well pause before collaborating with her in the future. 'The BBC will obfuscate on this topic for a long time,' says Borkowski. 'I would think that they are pretty uncomfortable because it puts them in the firing line.' Some have even argued that there might be room for legal action against the corporation. 'By providing financial assistance to an organisation which clearly intends to commit criminal damage in the UK, she is likely to be guilty under UK law for knowingly assisting the commission of criminal offences,' says Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of the legal advocacy organisation UK Lawyers for Israel. 'I think the BBC and sellers of her books could also be liable for assisting criminal offences by Palestine Action, as well as offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, for transferring funds that may be used for the purposes of terrorism.' The BBC, which now finds itself facing calls to pull Rooney's dramas from iPlayer, has itself said: 'Matters relating to proscribed organisations are for the relevant authorities.' The corporation is not thought to be working with Rooney on any projects at present. As for the author herself? Rooney may yet ride out this storm – but at 34 she has a long career ahead of her and, by taking such a controversial stance, has made herself more vulnerable. 'She will have made some enemies by doing this,' says one agent. 'Let's just say that this is not the time to put out a bad book.'
BreakingNews.ie
4 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
A judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the US government's request to unseal grand jury transcripts. The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Advertisement Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' Advertisement According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Advertisement Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. Advertisement 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. Advertisement In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
