A Sad Day For All Cristina Supporters...de Vido Detained

[notebook.fix]

I think its hard for him to leave his bubble - he doesn't have the ability to step back and look in. Unfortunately in his own head Macri's policy on immigration is making his job harder and so Macri is now the enemy - Cristinas open door immigration policy gave him more business. Now he is fighting judges all day trying to get wins for his clients. Ignore the fact that millions and millions of dollars have been stolen from the public - Cristina had the countries best interests at heart - just listen to her screech on TV. The sad thing is so many still drink her koolaid even after her minions go down like dominos for theft and corruption of public funds.. She should take herself to jail for gross mismanagement - ignoring the fact shes likely just as bad as those below her in stealing money. The last thing I would ever try do is get back in Government if multiple members of my team were caught stealing and misappropriating public funds - the audacity to try and gain immunity through government office is absolutely disgusting. She is a pig.

Couldn't agree more. You'nailed it well...as I type Macri is presenting economic & structural reforms highlighting the punitive tax system & the grossly inefficient public services etc etc. Too many parasitical forces who've made a good living off the corruption are now at war with the current administration. Too many rats feeding off the public purse for the last decade, time to clean up....TIME FOR A CHANGE!, people like Bajo LOATHE change & seek to regress the country back to the rotten old peronist dominated system.

 

[julian63]

Are you serious?

Let's see the obvious:
A) the President threat Federal judges on national TV;
B ) he suspended one judge who rebeled with a tricky maneuver and asserted that he was going to make an example of him [for other independent judges];
C) Federal judges created a new Judges Association to protect themselves from the Executive Power because the old one's authorities were M; from the 220 Federal Judges 211 passed to the new Associations, the other 9 were M authorities.
D) Federal Judges says no to whatever I ask but with the content of the sentence where they grand me what I ask (translation: if you read the end of the decision they say no, but if you read the whole decision they said yes).
E) the officialism made campaign about arresting him...
F) now Carrio asserts that sentences about genocidal must be reverse...for one moment I thought it cannot be done because criminal sentences when the appeals are over cannot be reverse. And for sure this is not the Call of a Congresswoman.
G) the President enacted a decree that 80% is all about to interference in my defence strategies and it is a long list of "judges cannot reverse my decisions"...
H) 12 Supreme Court appeals were granted in one year (this is the way the chambers shows its disagrement with the pressure of the President).
I) prosecutors who were my enemies now appeal on my behalf and they made me feel on their right...
J) I recusal massively judges for lack of independence of the executive power, and they accept it without having to go to the Chamber of Appeals (which is hilarious because they confess they are simple agents of the President).

Yes, I am serious. (Oh, that you would respond so succinctly).
Again, you refrain from answering my questions. I have to assume from what you wrote that you really do think that Arg has now become a totalitarian state, i.e., a state as defined by Merriam Webster as "of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader." This notwithstanding that it was the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to strip De Vido of immunity and it was the judiciary which then ordered his arrest. Which one of these governmental entities is the "autocratic leader?"

As a local attorney, you may very well have access to important facts that support your arguments, facts that could enlighten and thus benefit some of us. However, your explanations of such facts are often unclear and, more importantly from what others have said, often of questionable veracity. In any case, your arguments are often unconvincing or even irrelevant. Unfortunately perhaps, a potential source of good info like you is losing credibility.

Bajo, tell me something, please.
1. Do you think De Vido is guilty of embezzling money from the state?
2.Does Cristina K have criminal culpability because, whether or not she embezzled herself, she should have prevented De Vido and others from embezzling?

 

[wineguy999]

I think pretty much everyone here is - to use your words - "tired about you" when you try to argue that 176 of 257 is anything other than what it is - a huge margin.

Let's rehash basic arithmetic and/or grammar and/or logic:



No, he was not dismissed by "2.75% of what it is [sic] needed".
He was dismissed by 2.75 above what is needed. And to remind you, "what is needed" is a huge 2/3 supermajority. They got that and more.

There is a reason why that supermajority was required. The framers of the Constitution, wisely, did not want this stuff to happen willy-nilly. Dismissing an elected member is, as you yourself correctly (if cynically) observed, a big deal, and was only intended to be made possible when there was broad-based support, not subject to normal partisan politics. In the case of De Vido, that support exists, which is why nearly 7 in 10 diputados voted as they did. More importantly, those 68.5% of the diputados broadly crossed party lines and included FpV deputies.

Even if what you meant was to say "2.75 over", it just makes you laughable.
It's the meaning to the English phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

=====

Regarding the "misleading" contention where it "sound like he was dismissed by 100% of the Congress", where really that's only because the opposing side walked out:

A. It's a total strawman argument: nobody said it was 100%; everyone said it was a supermajority - correctly;
B. to the extent that no votes against it because "the K party didn't show up at Court", that was a stunt. Again, that you pretend not to know that just makes you a joke. Had every member not present voted against the measure, they'd have 31.5% of the vote. So the only option left to this group of entitled whiners (like you) was to walk out and manafacture the impression of some sort of principled boycott.

CFK is pursuing a similar tactic with Bonadio, telling him as soon as she walked into Court, "I do not expect justice from you" - which statement is now potentially landing her lawyers in hot water. Doesn't sound very different from POTUS disparaging any judge who rules against him, notably Judge Curiel.

You don't know when to quit bajo, do you?

I am Spartacus.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Do Universities here teach students to accept zero responsibility for ones actions and those you are managing? Do the professors teach you to point fingers when attention is drawn towards something you don't like? I understand as a lawyer you are used to manipulating the truth for your own gain but some things are more black and white. These cronies are scum - Cristina included. Put them all in jail and throw away the key. Time for them to be made an example of to try and stop this type of behaviour. The fact this bitch is back in Government after completely failing to manage her corrupt party is even more scary. You reap what you sow. People of this country need to look in the mirror.

We analize the case under the rule of law no matter who he is while you already sentenced them because you read Clarin.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Bajo, I appreciate that English is your second language so this may be a strong contributing factor why you avoid answering questions - questions that arise from your confusing posts. I asked you what it was that I wrote previously that is the basis for your assertion that the legal system in the US coerces testimony. You didn't answer. Let me make it clearer for you to see if we can agree.
[...]
In the De Vido case a warrant was issued for his arrest (after his Congressional colleagues stripped him of immunity) and thereafter De Vido turned himself in. Apparently (I say apparently because I am assuming it to be the case. Advise if otherwise.) the 3 judge panel that issued the arrest warrant deemed he was not eligible to be freed on bail whether it be for flight or other reason under Arg law. Why does this procedure nullify the case against De Vido as you seem to say? If anything, I could understand that the denial of bail was improper under Arg law. Was it? Is there no right of appeal for De Vido on that issue? But a criminal case is not dismissed simply because bail is improperly denied - is that the case in Arg?

The difference between both systems is that the accused is allowed to lie here while there is alike a witness.

Judges are under a lot of Pressure from the President. So, if the President and Carrio asserts that he must be jailed and he is, seems like the rule of law is F...ed up.

You have a proportional principle here, there must be some reasonable evidence that you might be guilty of a crime for, after, analize id there is risk of escaping or threat witnesses.

Here there is no even crime but they want the tv show with him under arrest. Demagogy? Probably it is worst!

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Couldn't agree more. You'nailed it well...as I type Macri is presenting economic & structural reforms highlighting the punitive tax system & the grossly inefficient public services etc etc. Too many parasitical forces who've made a good living off the corruption are now at war with the current administration. Too many rats feeding off the public purse for the last decade, time to clean up....TIME FOR A CHANGE!, people like Bajo LOATHE change & seek to regress the country back to the rotten old peronist dominated system.

Your ignorancy has no limits.

The plan to convert Argentina into Australia is from Peron. Helloooooooooooooooooo

 

[julian63]

The difference between both systems is that the accused is allowed to lie here while there is alike a witness.

Judges are under a lot of Pressure from the President. So, if the President and Carrio asserts that he must be jailed and he is, seems like the rule of law is F...ed up.

You have a proportional principle here, there must be some reasonable evidence that you might be guilty of a crime for, after, analize id there is risk of escaping or threat witnesses.

Here there is no even crime but they want the tv show with him under arrest. Demagogy? Probably it is worst!

I appreciate your reply. thanks. However, does the pressure from the President really rise to the level that it coerces judges to do his biding regardless of the evidence? Wouldn't such judges be afraid of public censure if they deviated from reasonable parameters in executing their responsibilities in applying the law?
Is there really no evidence against De Vido to believe he committed a crime. I would be surprised since it is my understanding it has been shown he has amassed a fortune - something not ordinarily possible on an official's salary. Such a fortune and the possibility of a long jail term raise the risk of flight, at least, it appears that way to me. (I know damn well I'd be on the first stage out of Arg if I were guilty of stealing many millions of USD.)

p.s. Your first sentence is hard to comprehend because of poor sentence structure (maybe). In the US, all witnesses in a criminal or civil trial are sworn in when they first take the witness stand - sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth , nothing but etc etc. Lying under oath is perjury, a crime for which one may be jailed a long time. Perjury charges are the subject of a separate proceeding. To lie not under oath, i.e., not in court, is common. Politicians do it all the time. Are you really saying that witnesses in an Arg criminal proceeding are not made to take an oath requiring them to tell the truth, that witnesses and/or the accused may lie with impunity? Hard to believe.

 

[notebook.fix]

Your ignorancy has no limits.

The plan to convert Argentina into Australia is from Peron. Helloooooooooooooooooo

What Thaaaa??! Peron = Australia???? I rest my case pass some this way..it must be some goooood shhhttt...ha ha ha .

 

[Bajo_cero2]

WThaaaa???? Peron = Australia???? I rest my case pass some this way..it must be some goooood shhhttt...ha ha ha .

Peron made two five years plans. The second had 2 chapters that were secret regarding population and immigration. Secret I say because the Segundo Plan Quinquenal that everybody knows lack this 2 chapters and they were only on the prints for high hierarcht agents of the regime.
While the National Constitution's plan is to gring 100 million immigrants for developing a free and independent power, Peron closed the immigration with 14 million people while the US made it with 144 millions.
Australia has low population, Peron look for low population.
Australia is almost a Colony. While Peron has a populist discourse for the masses about nationalism and independency, if you study deeply the law structure he created you realize that ge I resurrect the Spanish colonial system. So, he just changed the semi English protectorate we were for the ol regime of Spain that was an economical disaster for 200 years before the revolution.
Sanchez Marincolo was a hardcore Peronist who was in charge of the DNM and he enacted all the immigration and citizenship law of the dictatorship that banned immigration. He also published papers explaning the Australian case.
So, yes, when Macri asserted he was Peronist he was not liying. He is looking to became a protectorate BUT he have left 20 million citizens and he lacks 5 times the mineral resources Australia has.
So, he is nothing new, in fact he is bribging back the system that destroyed this country aince Peron.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

What Thaaaa??! Peron = Australia???? I rest my case pass some this way..it must be some goooood shhhttt...ha ha ha .

Peron made two five years plans. The second had 2 chapters that were secret regarding population and immigration. Secret I say because the Segundo Plan Quinquenal that everybody knows lacks this 2 chapters and they were only for high hierarchy officers of the regime.

While the National Constitution's plan is to bring 100 million immigrants for developing a free and independent power, Peron closed the immigration with 14 million people condemning the country to underdevelopment while the US closed immigration with 144 millions and now is the power we all know.

Australia has low population, Peron look for keep the population low banning immigration.

Australia is almost a protectorate.

While Peron has a populist discourse for the masses about nationalism and independency, if you study deeply the law structure he created you realize that he resurrected the Spanish colonial system.

So, he just changed the English semi protectorate we were by 1930 for the old regime of Spain that was an economical disaster for 200 years before the revolution.

Sanchez Marincolo was a extreme Peronist who was in charge of the DNM and he enacted all the immigration and citizenship laws of the dictatorship that banned immigration.

He also published papers explaning the Australian case as the example to follow.

So, yes, when Macri asserted he was Peronist he was not liying. He is looking to became a protectorate BUT he has left 20 million citizens and he lacks 5 times the mineral resources Australia has.

So, this is nothing new, in fact he is bringing back the plan that destroyed this country since Peron and that was enforced by all the dictators since him.