The journalist questioned Vice President Cristina Kirchner about the “pressure” she is carrying out against the Supreme Court to validate virtual sessions
The journalist Luis Majul carried out a very harsh editorial against the “closure” of Congress, which he said is brought about by Vice President Cristina Kirchner and by the alleged pressure that Kirchner sectors exert on the Supreme Court.
Here are the main concepts that he left during his program that is broadcast on the LN + channel:
The term “take everything ahead” is very popular and very graphic. It means destroying, knocking down, or removing anything that gets in front of the road. It is endowed with someone who, to achieve his goal, passes over anyone or anything that gets in his way. With any method or tool. In the current government, there are people who want to go above everything and everyone. There are people who want to take everything ahead: to justice, Congress, the division of powers, and also to the media.
There are examples for making dulce de leche. We can start with one of the last hours: Cristina Fernández’s claim to pressure the Supreme Court to grant him a kind of Corsican patent with the aim of meeting in a virtual way. Not only by request one realizes that they want to take the world ahead. Also for the content of the order, for the tone and even for the way to order it.
Just yesterday, the vice president, with that pleasant and persuasive tone, sentenced: “When the Court wants to deal with a matter, it does so.” He did it from his Twitter account, validating what was written by the Senate’s Director of Legal Affairs, Graciana Peñafort. Furthermore, Graciana Peñafort herself chose a not very happy metaphor to put pressure on the Court again, when writing: “It is the Supreme Court who must decide now whether we Argentines are going to write history with blood or with reasons, because the let’s write the same “.
What did Graciana Peñafort mean? What has to be now and can not spend another minute? What if the members of the Court do not immediately decide that they are going to set fire to their offices? In his fiery thread of tweets, Peñafort also put at the center of the question the suspicion that the Court does not want to rule because, according to her, all its members are against the tax on the very wealthy of Argentina (which incidentally , they are not as many or as rich as in most Latin American countries).
But, in any case, why not also discuss in the Senate and in Deputies, the reduction of per diems, or the increase in penalties for those who commit acts of corruption in the midst of the pandemic? So, then, just because one day Cristina Kirchner and her advisor got up inspired and came up with the idea that the Court must consider the only session it wants to preside over, this has to happen, because if it is not Does the world come down?
Graciana Peñafort seems, from her dates, a very prepared person. But that doesn’t mean I’m right. She, for example, perceives herself on the side of good, and places on the side of good, among others, her client, former vice president Amado Boudou, prosecuted and convicted for wanting to appropriate the state banknote machine, among other crimes. . But also, it is also questioned, more and more, for being, to put it in Creole, on both sides of the counter.
The jurists who are passionate about the debate, like herself, ask themselves: Being director of Congress, can you act in a cause where the Nation is affected? Are your decisions as director of the Senate valid? There are three rules that run through the matter:
One is a law that regulates the practice of law at the federal level. It says that the President, the vice president, the ministers, the secretaries, undersecretaries and legislators cannot exercise the profession; Another is the law that prohibits employees of the legislature from acting against the interests of Congress; and the third is a parliamentary provision that includes the presidents of both houses.
These three rules were shown to Peñafort, and she, in a tweet, defended herself by referring to the first two, concluding that there is no “incompatibility”. That is to say: it can do both. But he did not answer the third. I don’t want to get too technical. I am going to make it short and simple for you: she, as director of Legal Affairs, could not and should not act against the interests of Congress, interests that, by extension, are those of the Nation. So he would be committing an ethical fault, from here to China.
Graciana Peñafort defends Amado Boudou for the crimes for which he was already convicted, which are against the Nation, namely: passive bribery; negotiations incompatible with the civil service. Her work as a legal adviser to the State is contradictory, and her work as an advocate for someone who has been proven to harm the country.
But continuing with the idea of wearing everything: what would be the problem of senators meeting in Deputies, with due distance and care, and in any case, the deputies go to the Kirchner Cultural Center, or Luna Park, as suggested Miguel Ángel Pichetto?
But taking everything ahead is not just the above. Taking everything ahead is what the secretary of Human Rights Horacio Pietragalla Corti intended, wanting to send the corrupt confessed Ricardo Jaime to his home in Villa Carlos Paz; pretending to release Martín Baéz, squeezing, through his second, a judge from the Oral Court to grant Luis D’Elía freedom. And of course, always, wanting to manipulate the facts. Adulting the justifications, putting health and the coronavirus as the great excuse to improve the situation of criminals convicted of corruption.
I would like to know how many common prisoners Pietragalla will have worried about. I would like to know if perhaps it included, with the same humanitarian argument, the request for house arrest of the military convicted of human rights violations. But are you bored of talking about the imprisoned politicians of Kirchnerism? Well, let’s talk about the price premiums paid by the State. Let us not abandon the subject, neither this nor any. Let’s put more light in the dark areas.
In fact, on Sunday, in La Cornisa by LN +, we will present new research. It has the title: the happy box. It is about one of the most powerful officials in Argentina. He declared the emergency, before the pandemic, to use a multi-million dollar fund in a discretionary and uncontrolled manner. Before the emergency, anyone could find out about that fund. How and what it was spent on. Who won or lost the tenders. Not now: now direct services are contracted, in our opinion, unnecessary.
Speaking of wearing everything: there is also the danger of “malvinization” and unique thinking. We are part of united Argentina that we follow the rules, we applaud the doctors and the police, and we think that the President made correct decisions to avoid contagion and deaths from coronavirus. But can we not discuss the economy, the easing of quarantine, criticize ministers, highlight what is right and point out what is wrong? Am I a traitor to the homeland if I don’t picture myself, and I don’t become an Albertist, a Christianist, a Peronist, or more, or less official? Am I a dismissal or a “scoundrel of the right” if I do not think like Victor Hugo Morales, the man with the “double standard” who raises his finger with his left hand and charges with his right hand, hides his assets and always hides behind of political power?
There is always an infallible antidote against people who want to take everything ahead. More democracy, more division of powers, more information, more opinion. And for that we don’t need to be against politics, nor against the coronavirus. We don’t even need to leave our houses.
Find out the latest on digital economy, startups, fintech, corporate innovation and blockchain. CLICK HERE