Polarized legality, convergent ends

After a dramatic U.S. raid in Venezuela, partisans sharply disagree on the action’s legality and motives but show less divergence about practical next steps (trial, removal, stabilization). The split is procedural/epistemic (was it lawful/justified?) while policy preferences about outcomes converge more than media headlines suggest. — This pattern matters because it implies that political actors may be able to find bipartisan paths on governance and reconstruction even when they disagree over the legitimacy of how the operation began; it also signals risks to democratic oversight if legality becomes a partisan litmus test.