MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, September 20th 2018 - 18:39 UTC
An Argentine court on Thursday rejected an appeal filed by Cristina Kirchner to dismiss charges that she engaged in money laundering, allowing a criminal case against the former president to go forward. Read full article
Excellent news! May justice prevail!
She will be given the chance to clear her name in court. What is there to complain about ?
That's really not good enough Clyde, we can't just charge everyone with everything to give them an opportunity. This is clearly persecution but I'm confident she will win through in the end when justice prevails.
Oh and two lovely photos, one looking strong and powerful from her last Presidency and a very nice one from her swearing in this week. Enrique had pointed out the picture for her swearing in article seemed selected to be unflattering (though she was still very beautiful, of course!) compared to the others that could have been used, maybe MP thought it was safe to use one here next to the money-laundering allegations where the tone wouldn't get too positive ;)
You say it is persecution others say it is justice. Let the courts decide it.
You are SO creepy, you can't be real !
What is creepy and unreal about having a different point of view? One you must recognise from your own Scottish socialist background
Speaking of creepy, time to cue the Addams Family theme song!
The shameless exaltation of unabashed criminality is beyond creepy.
She can't be arrested? Is that why she wanted to be a lawmaker ? PMSL at that one lawmaker more like lawbreaker Argentina has a joke of a judicial system. I had a problem whilst in Argentina and the firm I worked for at the time had to pay a certain amount to make the problem go away.
It's nothing to do with socialism. It's the sycophantic way you refer to her continually as a beauty etc. You seem more interested in her knickers than her policies. If you don't recognise that as being creepy, then you are the only one.
I agree with Clyde15. It's not the fact you support CFK that's creepy but your apparent crush on her. I'm sure you'll agree there are plenty of Macri cheerleaders posting on here, but they don't go on about whether his photos were chosen to make him look strong or handsome or how inspiring his speeches are.
A criminal such as CFK can indeed be prosecuted whilst enjoying immunity from arrest when in the argentine senate, with certain exceptions to that immunity. And as we have seen with people like De Vido, that immunity can be removed by the congress. But most of the time, Peronism's principal purpose as a bloc is to maintain the immunity for career criminals like Menem and CFK, though there are many others. As the Peronist bloc shrinks in number and influence, we will likely see more immunities (fueros) removed.
Peronism's principal purpose as a bloc is to maintain the immunity for career criminals like Menem and CFK
Lol, yeah right. Political parties exist to get elected and run the country. Anything else is incidental. And De Vido is a Peronist too, Congress just voted to remove his immunity, so they are evidently not protecting everyone.
Also, I see Mercopress has indeed not mentioned that Macri's cousin is being investigated in one of the corruption cases and also had his assets frozen.
Do not the Argentines learn from past mistakes? Seems not. How can she justify accumilating so much wealth whilst being President? Are the Tax Authorities so incompetent in Argentina? Does she not have to file her stated assets? Where is justice?
Clyde I didn't start the talk on her looks, it was Enrique who noticed that they passed over her most radiant pictures for the swearing in article, I just noticed that they sneaked one in here. I do actually think she's one of the great beauties of our time or of any time, but I support her for her politics
DT there are plenty of Macri cheerleaders posting on here, but they don't go on about whether his photos were chosen to make him look strong or handsome or how inspiring his speeches are
Because they can't ;)
You may support her for her policies....that's your prerogative BUT ever since I came on to this site...probably about 5 years ago, you have continually commented on her looks in a sycophantic way. The woman is 64 years old and has had extensive plastic surgery.
Is this what you find beautiful. I googled to find some before and after pictures.
Which one is your definition of beauty ? Natural or plastic surgery + botox.
Maybe BK is older than her and has been fond of her for a long long time...
Beauty, is after all, in the eye of the beholder...
I thought BK was a Scot...?
Are you attacking a fellow Scot Clyde...?...
As long as we're dealing in beauty contests
I can understand why BK is so obsessed with her, what a striking image of her, in fact you could probably strike a match on her face.
Your portrait of la Kretina is priceless - a gem! I haven't had such a belly laugh in ages.
Not to worry. After a few drinks, she'll look even better.
Remember that beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
Really? I thought Macri was quite attractive for a politician. Compare him to Trump whose looks really fit his shallow and unpleasant personality.
Are you attacking a fellow Scot Clyde
...? Why shouldn't he, if he disagrees with him?
Another very amusing presentation of the REAL Kretina!
I don't know if BK is a Scot. He could be one of the many Trolls on this site.
I disagree with what people say regardless of nationality.
However, there are definite national traits that sometimes belie this.
I have more disagreements with Scots as I am in daily contact with them.
The US would have started to look more like Argentina had Hillary been elected. Most people like BK are just deluded wackos (95%) or somehow benefit from the corruption (5%). Hard to tell which one in this case. Perhaps he has his hand in the Kirchener till
Wow, are the Trumpistas really still bringing up Clinton a whole year later? Does Trump have no achievements worth mentioning? Is America not Great Again(tm) yet? What does it say about Trump if the best thing his supporters can come up with now is 'Hilary would have been worse'?
Ugh, BK should keep his wet dreams to himself. What he doesn't realise is he is actually insulting her by objectifying her. And, no, he is not Scottish but just one of the many troll identities stirring up shit.
@DT What is really puzzling is how the Republicans can't come up with a new slogan. How many have used the same old MAGA? Personally, I think we should Make America Great Britain Again. (JK)
Trump is in a mental meltdown over Flynn co-operating with the FBI.
B.K.'s English reminds me of the character who posted about his polo ponies and being on the fringe of UK Royalty. It just does not ring true as a Scottish socialist
Drifting away from the issue at hand - CFK's pathetic attempt to escape prosecution - if she ever was attractive - physically - it must've been decades ago, and even then, her nasty personality would've probably killed any natural beauty.
Getting back on track, as to the reasons why the K family is being prosecuted, I'd think it would be obvious to most.....how does La Kretina, and her two kids, justify their fortunes ? They must be either very successful in business, based on their 'own' merits of course, or were they involved in corruption ? if they are innocent as they claim, they should have no trouble in proving their fortunes were accumulated through honest means.
by mentioning Trump, you opened the door to Hillary....Sure Trump has his shortcomings (and quite a few) but from a point of view of sheer curiosity, it is relevant to stop and think how the US government might be had Hillary won the election...nothing wrong with that...Just look at her record as State Secretary...says it all. And even now, one year later, neither Hillary, nor her loser followers have managed to digest her defeat....I see a similarity with the situation in Brazil.....the members of the opposition put their own personal situation way ahead of that of the people. They'd rather see the country fail than give credit to their political opponents.
Good lord no! We have enough problems of our own without taking on America's.
If we really must talk about something as irrelevant as politicians' looks, who do you think is the most attractive leader in South America? (I made it South so you can't have Trudeau. ;))
Really? I don't remember any of Obama's supporters still talking about how terrible John McCain or Mitt Romney were a year after they lost their elections. Nor have I seen anyone but Trump supporters bring Clinton up for months, though she certainly has continued whining about it.
But I suppose the US would be more similar to Argentina if she had won, since she was broadly centre-right like Macri and unlike Trump held the standard positions in favour of free-trade and international cooperation. CFK herself suggested Trump's protectionist policies and emphasis on jobs and workers vindicated her own, and his antagonistic relationship with the media is rather like hers too. We'll have to wait and see if he ends up with similar legal troubles.
In spite of the usual attempt to derail a thread about the Narcokleptocrats, here's a little reminder...
It's funny that Wednesday is getting fed to the wolves, since she is the only one without immunity. Like La Asesina said, The girl has never had a job.
I believe it was established years ago that BK is in fact an Argentine (possibly of British descent), who is also a member of La Campora.
He 'adoration' of his 'beloved' Cristina borders on the fanatic.
I hope that his 'beloved' Cristina is locked up for the thief she is. The problem with people like BK is that he can't understand that the people she stole from are people like him.
@ DT Politics is show business for ugly people. I honestly don't look at the wrapping just the intent beneath.
If Hillary had won the election we would not be on the brink of a nuclear war with NK. The office of POTUS would still retain some dignity and meaning and we would not have a conman sitting in the Oval Office; because that is what he is. He has conned millions, as he has before running for office. All that said, Hillary was a tainted candidate and as Putin hated her he threw everything at keeping her out of office. I am certain that another Democrat - pretty much any other Dem - would have beaten Trump.
I have related here my personal witness account of CFK's money laundering activities at her hotels. Hotels are a notorious conduit of money into the accounts of crooks. The K's appropriated some businesses like Aerolineas in order to funnel public money into their personal accounts. Has anyone ever accounted for the airline being subsidised by millions daily? It was run by La Campora and the money disappeared. An easy way to steal is to book out the hotel to La Campora run companies and have them pay for the rooms. Of course, they never actually stay there.
Good answer. It's not like I don't see the wrapping, but it's irrelevant to who makes a good President; it's what they do that counts.
As for Trump I agree with most of what you say, though I don't suppose Putin had anything against Hilary in particular. There can't have been many possible candidates from either party who would be so supportive of Putin and similar anti-US autocrats. (Sadly there are plenty from both parties who support pro-US autocrats.)
The alternative to Clinton was Bernie Sanders though, and I'm not at all sure he would have beaten Trump, given how extremely right-wing most Americans are. It would have been interesting to see how a real leftist candidate did in the election though, and unlike Clinton he wasn't part of the establishment and did have something different to offer.
I hadn't really thought about what the US government would be like if Clinton had won, but given the Republican dominated House and Senate, I'd say it would be completely dysfunctional and unable to pass almost any legislation. The advantage to having the Republicans in complete control is now they have to put their money where their mouths are on things like Obamacare. No surprise that after years of nonconstructive criticism they are finding it hard to come up with a viable alternative, and it has exposed all their earlier attempts to repeal it as the empty gestures they were. Now they no longer have a Democratic President to block their attempts and take the blame, they haven't dared to do it.
Cristina would be pretty much left alone if she were to stay at home taking care of her grandchildren.
However, she keeps at the forefront and therefore represents a threat for the next election, which is why the Macri government is preparing a sweeping judicial offensive against herself and members of the former government. Judges who don't comply, such as Daniel Rafecas, have been and continue to be under threat of removal.
The tanks are out for now - some judges are in.
Which makes sense. The Macri government use of 'corruption' allegations may become a double-edged sword and therefore it absolutely needs to stay in power to keep in check many legal actions against Macri, family members and friends.
“Really” ? sorry, am not catchin’ on …..was referring to only HRC and her diehard supporters who can’t put ‘losing the election’ behind them...why would any of BO’s supporters bother talking “about how terrible John McCain or Mitt Romney were a year after they lost their elections”....BO won, didn't he ?? it’s about the loser complaining about losing, and HRC doesn’t lose an opportunity …
I hadn't really thought about what the US government would be like if Clinton had won...
Your belief that, under the current circumstances - a Republican-dominated Congress -
that Hillary would be dysfunctional, is probably correct....but I was thinking of HRC as president without a Republican congress....when she had power, as State Secretary, what did she do that is worthy of note ? and am not even going to mention where she screwed up.
Before saying Trump is against ‘free trade’….I'd say, against just ‘unbalanced’ trade, or lack of reciprocity. As far as international cooperation goes, the impression I get is that many countries have come to expect the US to do their duty, but with a few exceptions, aren't prepared to do theirs...
The fact that CFK tried to promote herself by suggesting the similarity between her and Trump’s views on ‘protectionist’ policies, is just political rhetoric. She’d say anything to look good. True, neither have a good relationship with the mainstream press, but for different reasons.
@EM, change the record....
Wow, five downvotes and only ONE reply? I'm thinking a lot of people disagree with me, but they can't deny I'm right...
Sorry, that was a reply to your by mentioning Trump, you opened the door to Hillary. I disagree; she was never president and is no longer particularly relevant. Or shouldn't be; it's true that Obama won, but so did Trump, so why did I hear him on my radio today talking about Clinton? (This time, it's because he's trying to distract people from the ongoing investigation into him and his team.)
If Clinton was President with support from congress, then I suppose she would be similar to Obama. They would have tried to fix Obamacare, rather than planning to kill it by the back door in this new tax bill without even a real debate. The worst thing about Hilary was her hawkishness, but Trump hasn't exactly proved himself any better - war with NK now seems like a real possibility.
As for free trade, do you really think the US is run as a charity? The US and the EU too don't do free trade, they have all kinds of tariffs and subsidies to protect their own industries. They push for freer trade only where and when it will benefit themselves, and the deals they have agreed to it were for their own overall advantage. But free trade hurts some people and helps others. Everyone benefits from lower prices, but the people who used to manufacture those things and lose their jobs suffer. And that's equally true in Argentina as in the US. When CFK put tariffs on imports, Argentine consumers paid them. If Trump puts tariffs on imports, US consumers will pay them.
What d'you think is different in their relationship with the press? Don't both blame the press for unfair reporting and 'fake news'? EM even showed me evidence of dodgy stories in Clarin.
You said before that the prosecutions were to distract from bad news, and the cases were going forward long before she stood as a senator. Do you really think they would go away if she just stayed at home?
Back on topic, here's an article with some interesting details. It describes what Elaine has witnessed in the past, but also says La Asesina's blocked funds were reduced from 130 million pesos to 110 million pesos...
I guess this means she'll have pocket money to send some La Campora thugs to assassinate me, eh, Kamerad/Komrade Rique?
Hey imoyaro! Go hide. Anywhere. “La Asesina” aka La Yegua o La Conchuda, was just sworn in as new Senator de la Republica! A great moment indeed. Too bad - she is going to catch you now. ~ Kamerad/Komrade El Fracaso Rique
Not unless you give her my name and address, eh?
OK, I can’t disagree that HRC is irrelevant....she is, but only she doesn't think so....and the fact she does not occupy any post, means she should stay at home and shut up - instead of just trying to screw the Trump administration (although he does a good job of it all by himself) at every opportunity because she’s a bad loser. And, due to HRC’s pathetic insistence, I think that Trump has the right to say what he thinks and says of her….despite the fact it’s not particularly ‘presidential’ of either of them.
In retrospect, neither one nor the other...but there was no 3rd option….but do you think that NK would be acting any different had HRC won the election ? after all, NK’s nuclear programme and abuses didn’t start on January 20th, 2017.
Having worked in shipping and foreign trade for dozens of years, I’m quite familiar with the effects of past free-trade agreements and the enormous deficits resulting from unbalanced trade….although they favoured me, as I was usually on the exporting side (to the US, amongst others), I was well aware of the protectionism in Brazil, resulting in the total lack of reciprocity. The world has come to expect the US to put up with it, because it can, but there comes a time that one-sided deals don't work any more. They pay for more than what they get.
Tariffs are ok, provided reasonable…I think I’ve already mentioned Brazilian import legislation (not to mention internal taxes) which, if doesn't prohibit the import of many items outright, makes them prohibitive due to excessive tariifs/taxes.
“They push for freer trade only where and when it will benefit themselves”…nothing wrong with that, but in the past the US has allowed many countries to get away with it…
The MSM attacked CFK / attacks Trump ...but for different reasons : Trump for his rhetoric and what many consider 'unpresidential' behaviour, and CFK, for being corrupt, and more recently, due to suspicions of murder (Nisman)...
Putin has a grudge against Clinton dating back to her term as Secretary of State. It is pretty well documented. If Joe Biden had run, (or been allowed to run) he would have won against Trump. What a shame it was that Clinton felt it was her turn.
I haven't been keeping up with Hilary Clinton news, what has she done to screw the Trump administration? The only thing I have heard about her for months was what Trump said, which was very obviously a lame attempt to distract from the Mueller investigation.
It's not very presidential of either of them, no, but only one is the President. However, since Trump evidently doesn't know the meaning of the word presidential, there is not much point talking about it.
As for trade, I don't believe the US's free trade deals, or their tariffs and subsidies either, are designed to benefit anyone except themselves. Do big US companies move their factories to China or Mexico to make those countries richer? No, it's so they can cut their costs and make more profit. And do Americans buy products manufactured in those countries to help the Mexicans and the Chinese? No, it's because they are cheaper. If it benefits those countries it's just a side effect of making American businesses richer. And it really, really has. Low skilled workers have suffered in the US, but the country as a whole is richer because of this.
About the CFK and the media:
The conflict started in 2008, during a period in which the government was in open confrontation with the agricultural sector over a propose hike in oilseed export taxes. The Clarín Group, led by CEO Héctor Magnetto, strongly supported the sector, and their newspapers published articles that were considered favorable to the ruralists” or chacareros. At least one writer who worked for one of the conglomerate's dailies (Enrique Lacolla of La Voz del Interior) was dismissed for submitting an op ed opposing the landowners' lockout of April 2008.”
She then tried to introduce laws to reduce the share of the market dominated by those major media groups, which they naturally opposed. So the hostility arose out of real differences.
About the only thing I've heard of HRC nowadays, is her frequent appearance on TV, only to criticize the current administration...why doesn't she just accept the fact she lost and fade into the background ? allow people to forget her and get on with their lives.
We're going thru a similar situation here : despite the fact that - provided the Law is not made a joke of - Lula should be imprisoned after/if he is condemned by the TRF4, he keeps on insisting that he will not go to jail, even if condemned, that he’ll be a candidate in 2018, and will win...as a free man (for the time being, anyway), he has every right to blow his mouth off, but it keeps Brazil on standby, in that people are afraid /wary of what might happen in 2018, keeping them in a 'wait 'n see ' mode, and putting much needed investments on hold… which delays recovery, in detriment mainly of the poor (lack of jobs)- those he professes to defend.
He is such a megalomaniac, he believes he is bigger and more important than Brazil, and his only concern is to return to power.
Can't disagree with your comments on why US companies are in China and/or Mexico, but in the long term, believe it's prejudicial - the American consumer may pay less, kidding himself he is better off, but seems to ignore the resulting unemployment ...besides, it makes the companies richer, not the workers. That’s why I say, generally speaking, the US (govt) has been too 'soft' with its trading-partners in the past…other countries have been allowed to generate big superavits at the expense of the US. And, I don't think that the China/ Mexico deals are the same, or can be compared to the US negotiating tariffs with other 3rd world countries
Re CFK, I remember the Clarin episode , as well as her irrational confrontation with the agricultural / cattle sectors, with serious consequences for the economy, but the corruption charges will be what she's best remembered for.
I didn't know that. However it shouldn't matter whether Clinton felt it was her turn. The Democratic party ought to be choosing the best candidate for the job and the one with the most support; there is obviously something wrong with how they did this, and I hope they fix it before the next election. It was ridiculous to have only two candidates for President and both of them widely hated.
So Clinton is just criticising? I doubt one more person doing that is gonna do much to screw the administration.
Your situation in Brazil is different because there is still a chance Lula could be a candidate, and if he is he has a good chance of winning. But all you can do is wait and see. Everyone thinks they know best, so I'll bet Lula thinks his policies would be the best for Brazil (or better than the alternative, anyway), and believes he's benefiting people by standing.
Greedy companies is the left wing view of why free trade is bad, and it's a pretty common belief, much more so than on the right. Of course it wouldn't work for a Republican to blame big business, so Trump prefers to blame foreign countries which fits with his base's nationalism. What's more difficult is to work out the costs and benefits, and if free trade is overall a good thing, to mitigate the harm to those who suffer as a result.
The big problem for US workers is that automation is starting to take off, so even if the factories come back, the jobs may not. With cheaper foreign workers it is not worth automating, but with expensive US ones it probably is. Supposing Trump goes ahead, we'll get to see what happens in a few years.
As for China, I don't think the US have a trade deal with them. In fact they tried to create one with most of China's neighbours, purposely not including the Chinese, but it was unpopular and Trump vetoed it.
I wasn't around back then, what was irrational about CFK's confrontation with the agricultural sector?
Headlines today that a judge in Argentina is calling for the extinction of CFK congressional immunity and her arrest. The judge's request goes to the argie senate.
Clarin, that fair and balanced (co Fox News) source on all things Cristina, yeah right. Can't believe I accidentally upvoted that! Everyone bear in mind Marti's salivating over the ongoing witch hunt should be 2 points less popular.
As for the discussion of me, if I was a troll I'd be delighted as I clearly got you going, but as it is I'm just sad see such a tidal wave of sexist, ageist reactionary crap. That kind of garbage used to be quite common on here and I'd make more accurate comments about Cristina's looks to try and restore some balance, but its clearly a topic we should draw a veil over here. Not because of any ugliness on her part, but the ugliness of the haters' views. That said, Enrique's original comment about editorial picture choice was very apt.
golfcronie: what a striking image of her, in fact you could probably strike a match on her face Be consistent man, your joining the feeding frenzy on her ugliness here but on another thread you boasted of getting a good look at her tits. But then you are consistently nasty.
Clyde: The woman is 64 At least we now have an answer to the Beatles song ;)
As for the discussion of Clinton and Trump, its clear now that Bernie would have beaten him, maybe in a landslide, if Hillary hadn't stolen the nomination. Despite at DT points out the right wing political backdrop in America. Establishment politics and economics are in crisis everywhere - which doesn't bode well for Macri's attempt to apply a particularly extreme version in a country like Argentina with such a tradition of popular mobilisation, where neoliberalism already collapsed once and the left stepped in to save the country. Hence his lurch to authoritarianism and attempts to criminalise the opposition.
Talking of which, still not seen much response to this scandal http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/in-a-bizarre-move-argentina-bars-ngos-civil-society-from-attending-wto-conference-59254
Not only is the one court asking for the arrest of Kirchner, impounding of some 50 million of her ill-gotten gains, and removal of the congressional immunity, but several of reekie's other friends are going to jail:
Alberto Carlos Zannini: attorney, formerly Kirchner's top legal beagle.
Luis D’Elía - charged in the coverup of Iranian bombing of the AMIA centre.
Yussuf Khalil - also charged in the coverup of Iranian bombing of the AMIA centre.
Fernando Esteche - already turned himself in, in jail. Former Quebracho hooligan, now also implicated in the cover-up of Iranian bombing of the AMIA centre.
So many Peronist criminals in the argie congress that it will be an uphill struggle to have CFK immunity removed.
But the amount of evidence against this gang of criminal Kirchnerists has grown significantly.
Will there be jails enough for all of them?
It was judge Bonadio, what a shock. Am I right that they can still prosecute CFK even with the immunity, they just can't arrest her? He could have ordered her arrest any time up to the last few weeks without any difficulty, so why wait until now?
What's Esteche got to do with the AMIA bombing anyway? I thought he was a professional rabble rouser.
You're right about Golfcronie et al, but I don't think going on about how beautiful she is is the right response. So what if she WAS ugly? It wouldn't make her a bad president
I disagree that establishment politics and economics are in crisis everywhere. They are in Europe and the US, but Latin America seems to work on a different cycle. Besides which, some of these countries have had left-leaning governments so long that they have almost become the establishment.
And CFK is to be arrested for treason. Her deal with the Iranians to cover up their bombing of the Jewish centre in return for oil has finally caught up with her. When Nisman was to present the facts he was suicided by the Iranians. The current judge who has ordered her arrest should have extra security.
It’s not the criticism in itself, it’s the negative effect is has on those too stupid to filter out the BS. Similarly, Lula’s rhetoric just serves to destabilize the country- he’s a defendant in 6 Federal cases (stealing, taking bribes, influence trafficking w/ foreign govts for personal gain, money laundering ), already condemned in one, and with a slate dirtier than a sewer…after following his “career” for the past 40 years, you get to know what his true intentions are…You probably wouldn’t vote for him, but what about the millions of ignorant idiots here in Brazil ? they don't know the difference btwn honest & dishonest, and 'believe' they’ll lose all social benefits if he’s not elected; Lula knows his policies don’t work…14 years of “lulopetismo” prove that . If you were able to understand the videos of him out there, ranting to his more fanatical followers, you’d realize he’s only in it for himself and his gang.
I believe in free-trade, but to last, like any agreement, it has to be good for both sides. The fact that automation may get in the way in the US, is not the cause of an imbalance in foreign trade, it’s just another factor to aggravate the situation. And, I think it's unstoppable, so might as well just get used to it. China’s situation is unique in the world…buys raw materials from all over, transforms it into superfluous crap, which then finds its way back to those who sold them the raw material – and at subsidized prices (considering the value of their currency and low wages) - which eventually take its toll on local industry, increasing unemployment - unless new job areas are created. Very different to bilateral trade /tariff agreements, to exchange goods which the one wants and the other produces better.
CF’s tax hike on exports was crazy...who exports taxes ? She also taxed beef exports, to increase revenue & domestic supply / force prices down…so, breeders slaughtered their herds, reduced exports, internal prices shot up
Under the present interpretations of congressional immunity, the senator-elect or deputy-elect enjoys the same fuero as after the swearing in. As far as your question on timing, I have no real idea, but I think the warrant had 300 some pages so it's possible that the package was not all tied up until now.
And yes, with few exceptions, a congress member can be prosecuted and even convicted while under fuero but can't be arrested by national police. I'm just guessing that other police levels are similarly constrained. Right now it looks like the criminal bloc in the senate (Kirchnerism+Peronism) have enough votes to block the desafuero request from the judge. And the usual hooligan elements are already promising to burn down the country if CFK actually does get arrested and they're planning some sort of dry run for that this evening.
Let's wait for the brackish kirchnerist and ridiculous reekie to give us their usual about how their criminal heroes should be above the law here.
Is it bullshit? Trump is nearly always doing something worth criticising. But you haven't much to worry about, his voters are totally loyal according to him:
I don't know enough about Brazilian politics to say who I'd vote for; there don't seem to be many good options. I doubt those people are completely wrong though. To compare it to our situation, the Tories wouldn't dare to privatise the NHS, but they don't give it as much funding when they are in power as Labour do. It's not simply a binary choice.
China is different because it is so big, but its path to development isn't totally unique; other East Asian countries have grown their economies with cheap manufacturing and exports. I agree that China does not trade fairly - it's big enough and powerful enough to make it's own rules to a certain extent. I don't know if it would be possible for the US to put pressure on them and get a better deal, but I suspect it won't be happening any time soon.
Taxing exports does seem a bit perverse. I suppose it was part of her self-sufficiency policy, the whole thing seems like a bad idea to me. And there are so many real world examples of price controls having a counterproductive effect, I don't know why anyone still tries them.
Yeah, but she was only elected in October. It just seems odd they'd wait to until it would be more difficult, and why do they need to arrest her anyway? It's not like she's going anywhere.
Also I have never seen Enrique say that she or anyone should be above the law.
PS. Why 'brackish'?
@tree why do they need to arrest her anyway?
Think about it. How to you put someone in jail for their crimes if that person is not arrested? Menem has been convicted for serious crimes but due to his fueros and the Peroncho shield that keeps those fueros intact, he's at large.
Normally we only jail people for their crimes *after* they have been convicted. People who are merely accused are allowed out on bail.
DT is right, in Argentina the convicted may go to jail but those under trial remain free unless there exists a flight risk or the possibility of interfering with witnesses.
The judges are now issuing arrest orders on the basis of residual relationships that would allow them to interfere with the trial.
The Iran agreement accusation against CFK, however, is the most ridiculous one of the package. It attempts to classify an act of government endorsed by the Legislature but never fulfilled as treason.
The most ridiculous accusations are that the Argentines planned to have Interpol cancel the red alerts against suspected Iranians, something Interpol has denied. The other is Elaine's preferred: Argentina was going to provide grain to Iran in exchange for oil, which does not hold water because Iranian oil has too high a sulphur content for Argentina's refineries.
In any event, this offensive happens at a time the Macri government is facing a serious backlash against its projects to change retirement regulations with even the non-Kirchnerist Peronists are ready to oppose. The year 2017 will end with raising inflation, partly fueled by 2,500 per cent increase in energy bills in the last two years. In addition, the government's response to the the ARA San Juan sub tragedy has been less than lacklustre.
As in previous occasions, the jailing of opponents consistently happens when the government is losing initiative and needs to divert attention from serious issues. It's a trick that can work for sometime--but decidedly not forever.
@ DT It is perfectly normal in the U.K.to arrest someone and charge them if there is enough evidence for prosecution. Whether or not they get bail is entirely dependent on the severity of the crime and flight risk. Many people accused of serious crimes are remanded without bail until their case is heard.
@reekie ....The year 2017 will end with raising inflation, partly fueled by 2,500 per cent increase in energy bills in the last two years. ..
Reekie, he so full of shite.
with raising inflation == currently expected 21 percent annual inflation is lower than the 38 percent during CFK government in 2015, except when using Kirchnerist arithmetic
partly fueled by 2,500 per cent increase in energy bills ==== Even with reduced subsidies, Argentines still pay the lowest prices for gas and electricity in the region. The subsidies contributed to high fiscal deficit and applied to not just those in lower economic conditions, and created an environment in which argentines preferred to burn more cheap gas and cheap electricity instead of investing in energy efficient systems. So much so that Argentina is paying big dollar money to get additional natural gas Chile and Bolivia.
Yes, I know. That is why I asked why they wanted to arrest her, because a senator does not strike me as a flight risk. According to someone in the other thread, they were worried she might interfere with the evidence somehow.
I must say, I find this case considerably less plausible than the corruption ones. Even if the facts alleged are true - and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that - it does not strike me as treason.
Section 119.- Treason against the Nation shall only consist in rising in arms against it, or in joining its enemies, supplying them with aid and assistance. Congress shall by a special law determine the punishment for this crime; but the penalty shall not extend beyond the person of the convicted, nor shall this dishonor be transmitted to relatives of any degree.
I assume they are going with 'supplying them with aid and assistance', but is Iran even an enemy? It's not like they are at war or anything.
EM isn't wrong. Even if increasing energy bills is overall a good thing, that doesn't mean they don't fuel inflation; they do. The harm just has to be balanced against the benefits.
“Is it BS ? yes, I think it is…what has she said or done that’s been constructive, as State Secretary, and before or after losing the election ? What I’m trying to point out, is quite simple : for better or worse, Trump IS president, HRC is a sore loser and people like her, do a diservice to the country.
As to your “doubting” that Lula’s followers are “completely wrong”, is understandable…the international press rarely tells the truth about Lula, always promoting his as the savior of the poor, extolling the ‘bolsa familia’ as his great achievement (and which wasn’t even ‘his’ idea, but has become a perverse political tool to manipulate the poor), while it conveniently omits the shit he got Brazil into, or downplays it as Dilma’s fault…Lula has always controlled her. Regardless, I get the impression you are convinced that Lula ain’t the bad guy people paint him as , and it is clear you judge South American politicians based on the UK’s - you find it hard to believe that they (Brazil’s) can actually do the things they are accused of. But it’s you right to believe their pleas of innocence.
While other East Asian countries have followed China’s style of development (in some ways), but in a far lesser scale, China stands out alone on the world scene, and has reached this position due to its size, and at the expense of its people, as well as its trading partners.
Your comment to EB that “because a senator does not strike me as a flight risk “, couldn’t be further away from reality…we’ve had several high-profile politicians who have ‘disappeared’ when they learn (through friends in high places) that they are about to be arrested…and many have been caught destroying evidence…and don’t believe they are above brazen-faced lying when confronted by the judges presiding their cases. You just have to watch them during their depositions. I really think you need to start travelling to the 3rd world, to get a better grip on its reality.
what has she said or done that's been constructive
That has no bearing on whether her criticism of Trump is accurate, or fair. Are the things she's said about Trump recently generally true or not?
And you've misunderstood my meaning about Lula. Even if the other parties would keep the BF, and other benefits, for fear of making themselves unpopular, they are likely to cut the programs back, make it harder to qualify, and spend less on them. The PT is more likely to keep them as they are, or expand them by creating new programs, because they see them as a priority. So for the poor in Brazil, it is not enough to say the other parties would keep the social programs. They want someone who will put them first.
You're right, I don't think Lula is the bad guy you paint him as, although I do believe he's probably guilty of corruption. You say he promotes the BF and other social programs to buy votes, but AFAIK he always supported those types of policy, even when they weren't winning him elections. I think people can have more than one motivation, and that probably applies to most politicians.
I guess a senator could be a flight risk, but CFK didn't strike me that way. I still haven't seen any articles saying whether that is the reason Bonadio wants her arrested, or if they thought she could interfere in the investigation, or what, so who knows?
I certainly don't believe politicians are above brazen lying, but I don't think visiting the 3rd world (more) would help. It's easy to see the poverty, but I've never got much of an impression of the politics of any country I've visited, and I don't see why you would unless you were unlucky enough to encounter some kind of political unrest while you were there.
Social welfare programs such as the Bolsa Familia are smart social welfare policies addressing extreme poverty, a permanent feature of Brazil's extreme inequality.
According to Wikipedia, Bolsa Família provides financial aid to poor Brazilian families; if they have children, families must ensure that the children attend school and are vaccinated. If they exceed the total of permitted school absences, they are dropped from the program and their funds are suspended. The program attempts to both reduce short-term poverty by direct cash transfers and fight long-term poverty by increasing human capital among the poor through conditional cash transfers. It also works to give free education to children who cannot afford to go to school to show the importance of education.
How can that be bad?
However, for JBauer, the program has become a perverse political tool to manipulate the poor, while it conveniently omits the shit he got Brazil into.
JB's reasoning expresses well one of the main obstacles to social progress in Latin America: the selfish mindset of the rich and powerful, who consider a dollar spent on social welfare is a dollar taken from their obscene wealth.
The Kirchnerist governments in Argentina and those by the PT in Brazil have both been undermined or deposed by claims of corruption.
However, claims of corruption about the governments that followed have been given much less coverage by the media, judges have been noticeably soft about investigating and convicting, legislative powers have been looking the other way.
Corruption, when exercised by the representatives of the rich and the powerful, is shrugged off as inevitable.
Just as a sample, there are many accusations against president Temer in Brazil and the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Correo Argentino among others regarding president Macri in Argentina. All of them cajoneadas (delayed), gone nowhere, or closed for good.
Fighting corruption is good, but needs to be consistent.
I think it definitely does…it’s the pot calling the kettle black ; while some things she says may be true, she’s only doing it because she’s a sourpuss loser. ; the BF is not going away, nor being cut back ; it’s here to stay, despite the fact it’s used politically. If it’s been short-funded, thank the crisis caused by Lula ; it’s been misused, so yes, it needs corrections, and respect for the rules under which created. The PT has no interest in ‘transforming society’ for the better (nor does any other party) - don’t kid yourself; they had 4 terms to implement sustainable social programs - which could have really lifted people out of poverty, for good - but what did they resort to ? populism, they threw just enough crumbs to the poor to keep them smiling, while making sure they stayed put…to implement a Bolivarian sate in Brazil would not work if people weren’t ignorant/ able to be manipulated; it’s easy to support new programs if you don’t need to prove what you’re saying.…to cut a long story short, if they could, the PT (and the Foro de SP) would love to see Lula as dictator, like Chavez and now Maduro. Surprised you can’t see this, but ok, you’re not living it , day after day. Suggest you get someone to explain just some of the hundreds of videos circulating on you tube, showing him ranting. Not surprised you “don't think Lula is the bad guy I paint him as, but you believe he's probably guilty of corruption”….nice, ‘probably guilty of corruption’, yet you accept him… just like many deluded Brazilians. No intention of offending you, but it is obvious your information sources are biased. “It's easy to see the poverty” says it all …the crisis caused by the PT has taken Brazil back to where it was in 1990…while the pseudo-social programs trumpeted as the solution have in no way produced the desired results, the PT’s populist policies have screwed Brazil. Just take a look at the overall result of 14 years of ‘lulopetismo’. A complete disaster.
You don't think it makes any difference whether Hilary's criticism is generally accurate? Even if she's a sourpuss loser, she's entitled to criticise what Trump is doing, and if telling the truth is having such a negative effect, well, I don't think it's the person pointing it out who is the problem.
As for the PT, such left-leaning sources (not) as the World Bank and Forbes magazine agree that poverty in Brazil fell sharply as a result of their policies. Now since the recession a lot of people have fallen back into poverty, but I haven't seen any stats saying it's as bad as when Lula took over. They were lucky because of the commodities boom, but it's not inevitable the profits from that would be spread throughout society. What other government has managed to reduce poverty in Brazil? How many even tried? We're not just talking poor, but people living on under a dollar a day.
‘probably guilty of corruption’, yet you accept him… just like many deluded Brazilians.
Didn't you say Temer is probably guilty, yet you want him to continue as President in order to pass the reforms? How is that any different? I don't think Lula is any worse than the other Brazilian politicians, though perhaps that isn't saying much...
And I agree with Enrique that fighting corruption is good, but it needs to be consistent. In Brazil I don't think it is, even if it started off that way.
I think you are right that at least some members of the FSP and PT would be happy to see Lula as dictator, which is disappointing. But you can hardly say there aren't people on the right who are happy to support dictatorships, since they actually did so for 20 years.
It's easy to see the poverty” says it all”
I've never been to Brazil, but that's what I've seen when I visited third world countries. Not sure what it says, except that there is a lot of poverty there, and it's not hidden away.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!