Venezuela’s former Chief of National Intelligence Hugo Carvajal has OFFICIALLY RELEASED every U.S. Senator who is on THE VENEZUELA LIST of politicians who have been receiving MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

1. What was actually circulated and where it came from

The allegation appears to trace to social posts shared by users including Joshua Hall and commentator Justin Deschamps, who reposted claims that Carvajal had “confirmed” top U.S. politicians were on a paid list; these posts provided no primary documentation to substantiate the explosive accusation ^{[1] [3]}. Snopes’ inspection concluded it “found no evidence” that Carvajal had released any list implicating U.S. senators or other federal lawmakers, and noted the origin of the viral claims on X and through partisan outlets rather than through verifiable legal filings or authenticated documents ^[1].

2. What official or corroborated materials actually exist

Reporting indicates Carvajal’s attorney shared a letter with the Dallas Express that alleges broader claims—such as U.S. diplomats and CIA officers being paid to assist Chávez and Maduro—but that document did not provide a named “Venezuela list” of U.S. senators or other specific federal lawmakers receiving millions in kickbacks ^[1]. Separately, public records show Carvajal’s long history as Venezuelan intelligence chief, sanctions and later extradition, and a 2025 guilty plea on narcoterrorism and drug trafficking charges — facts that give his statements weight but do not substitute for named, corroborated evidence linking U.S. senators to bribery ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Why absence of evidence matters here

Extraordinary allegations require documentary proof: a signed, dated confession with corroborating records, indictments, or verified whistleblower testimony are the kinds of evidence that would substantiate claims about elected U.S. officials taking “millions.” Fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets report none of that exists in this case; the viral materials are assertions shared on social platforms and an unvalidated letter that omits named U.S. senators ^[1]. The absence of such corroboration means the claim remains unproven and should not be treated as established fact.

4. Possible motives and the information ecosystem that amplified the claim

The narrative fits patterns in which partisan actors and social amplifiers seize on high‑profile defendants’ alleged knowledge to make politically useful charges; the posts and outlets promoting the story include partisan commentators and an exclusive Dallas Express publication, suggesting potential agenda and selective sourcing rather than open, verifiable disclosure ^{[1] [3]}. That does not prove bad faith by every participant, but it highlights why independent verification and transparent sourcing are essential when accusations could influence public trust or legal exposure.

5. What this does and does not prove about Carvajal’s statements

Carvajal’s conviction and his lawyer’s public letter indicate he has provided allegations about foreign interference and corruption tied to Venezuelan leadership, subjects that merit scrutiny ^{[1] [2]}. Those broader claims do not equal an “official release” naming U.S. senators receiving millions, and the available reporting explicitly found no evidence of such a list or that any U.S. senator was officially implicated in a documented disclosure by Carvajal ^[1].

6. Reporting limitations and next steps for confirmation

The present record, as summarized by Snopes and supported by contemporaneous reporting, shows no verifiable list has been made public; absent new evidence such as a forensic‑authenticated document, sworn testimony in court, or official indictments referencing Carvajal’s claims, the allegation must remain unsubstantiated ^[1]. Journalistic follow‑up should seek the original purported documents, ask prosecutors whether they have evaluated such claims, and demand transparent sourcing from those who amplified the story ^{[1] [3]}.