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

[Bajo_cero2]

Naturally...but only if they're Kirchneristas.

1) He keeps working at Congress until he is sentences IF he is found guilty;
2) He keeps in liberty until he is found guilty. Basic.

 

[EJLarson]

This is a biased assert because there were no votes against it because the K party didn't show up at court.

Cambiemos had 90 seats in the Legislature at the time. A 176-0 vote, even without the K’s, shows that there was significant support - obviously a majority - in the 257-member body for removing immunity. The arrest is a separate issue: you’ve made your views clear on that, but removing immunity has nothing to do with the legal issue. It’s pure politics, and the vote showed how far the K’s have fallen, politically.

Macri didn’t make that happen with his 90 votes: there was broad-based political support for exposing De Vido to justice.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

It is a bised assetion because pretends that everybody agreed and what happened was very different. You sound like he was dismissed by 100% of the Congress whiles he was dismissed by 2.75% of what it is needed or 68.75% of the votes.

Your usual ignorancy does not suprise me. Mayority? And what kind of mayority you need for this? Do you know it? No, you do not. You need 66% and they got 68,75% so An accurate assertion is: Macri barely got the votes for this (2.75%)

Third, againg going back to your ignorancy potenciated with arrogancy, congressmen who disagre left the Congress when the National Constitution was abolished, so, it has a deep meaning what happend because all those Congressmen finished in jail for that and the officialism was very clumpsy doing thing this way: a vulgar display of power.

It is Ok, happens when you repeat what you see on TV.

 

[EJLarson]

It is a bised assetion because pretends that everybody agreed and what happened was very different. You sound like he was dismissed by 100% of the Congress whiles he was dismissed by 2.75% of what it is needed or 68.75% of the votes.

I "sound like he was dismissed by 100%?" Please, bajo, as a lawyer you actually need to learn how to read. So to help you develop these new skills, I'll quote what I said: "[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]A 176-0 vote, even without the K’s, shows that there was significant support - obviously a majority - in the 257-member body for removing immunity."[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Does that sound like 100%? Let me help: no, it does not. It sounds like "significant support" and "obviously a majority." By what twisted logic do you take a 68.75% of the votes in the Chamber of Deputies and declare it to be 2.75%? That's the margin over the minimum, but it's not the majority - which is almost 70% of all the deputies, Cambiemos and others - which was my point. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]There's a pertinent saying in English: "He's too dumb to talk to." I'll translate for you on request. By the way, my post discussed an issue in a respectful manner. That's another skill you might want to brush up on. I'm sure there are several posters here willing to help your transition if you care to try.[/background]

 

[julian63]

Bajo ,
I did not practice criminal law in the US much less in Arg. However, if I were an Arg lawyer I would be slow to make fun of the law in other jurisdictions (i.e the "are you from Cuba" nonsense). From what I can tell, the legal system here is broken in many ways. As far as needing a court order to effect arrest, I find it hard to believe every kind of crime requires that. Do the authorities need to obtain a court order to arrest and detain one suspected of murder, found with gun in hand at the scene of the crime? Do the cops need to go to a judge to get an order to arrest a bank robber caught in the act. I mean, is there no crime for which an immediate detention may be effected by the police. Thereafter, when the suspect is brought to court isn't risk of flight a basis to deny bail regardless of the nature of the crime?

The timing and manner of De Vido's arrest - if it violated the law - should be remedied. Did it? Didn't he turn himself in? Are you saying that despite the risk of flight, under applicable Arg law, De Vido must be allowed to be free and to continue to serve in Congress? Is that what removing immunity means - only that a case may be prosecuted but the accused will not be subject to the laws concerning bail while charges are pending. Interesting - I imagine there are many Arg Congresspersons against whom criminal charges are pending living outside the country.

By the way, one of the reasons I favored Macri, quite apart from economic or corruption issues, was what I thought was his campaign promise to control public demonstrations. Demonstrators blocking access to any public place should obtain a permit first to conduct a demonstration. For example, blocking access to the airport is not a right of anyone. People are free to demonstrate, but not if it unreasonably interferes with the rights of others. Another example of "the right to extend your fist ends where my nose begins" aphorism.

The case or cases against De Vido will proceed and guilt or innocence will be established by the evidence. I don't perceive any mob rule rush to judgment. From what I have heard he embezzled a lot of money among other things, but if there is no evidence to support that charge, he should not be convicted. And if there is no reasonable basis for bringing such charges against him, he should have a right to sue for damages for false arrest ( at least, he would in the US).

 

[Mitch]

I "sound like he was dismissed by 100%?" Please, bajo, as a lawyer you actually need to learn how to read. So to help you develop these new skills, I'll quote what I said: "[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]A 176-0 vote, even without the K’s, shows that there was significant support - obviously a majority - in the 257-member body for removing immunity."[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Does that sound like 100%? Let me help: no, it does not. It sounds like "significant support" and "obviously a majority." By what twisted logic do you take a 68.75% of the votes in the Chamber of Deputies and declare it to be 2.75%? That's the margin over the minimum, but it's not the majority - which is almost 70% of all the deputies, Cambiemos and others - which was my point. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]There's a pertinent saying in English: "He's too dumb to talk to." I'll translate for you on request. By the way, my post discussed an issue in a respectful manner. That's another skill you might want to brush up on. I'm sure there are several posters here willing to help your transition if you care to try.[/background]

Why do I see a response coming that has little to do with your clear post?

Even if she were not a criminal, I would be happy to see her rot in jail for having to listen to her shrill voice for so many years.

 

[julian63]

Thank you!
The criminal law here is different.
He can remain is silent. He also can lie. So, the whole legal basis you defense is [here] wrong and it considered coertion and the evidence obtained this way are nullid.

In the US , to lie under oath is itself a crime. It isn't in Arg?

 

[Somewhereinba]

It takes a certain type of person *cough lawyer* to try and defend those who steal from their own people to fill their pockets. Those who really believe this was a 'select few' bad apples are already too far down the rabbit hole. These thieves are a huge reason this country struggles so much to improve itself. Why should anyone pay taxes and go blanco when these pieces of shit are stealing millions of public funds for their own benefit. Corruption should be met with long prison sentences - only then will it make people at all levels think twice about stealing from their neighbours. IMO its no different than robbing a bank.

Sorry my mind is blank - can't remember anything....

 

[Tres Picos]

In fact what I find interesting in this forum is how we expats, who mostly hail from the "developed" world, and could be expected to be well-versed in civic society values such as, for example, the separation of the powers, the presumption of innocence, the concept of 'sub judice' etc., seem quite happy to abandon them and 'go native' in our analysis of our adopted society.

Was nodding my head til noticed this was coming from an Irishman.

Anyhow, a society governed by civic values was an aberration and only made possible by an unlikely confluence of environmental variables. If current conditions remain relatively stable, it's highly probable that it will go extinct in 2 generations. Of course, conditions won't remain stable.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

SomewhereBA, i do not defend De Vido, I defend the rule of law. All corrup politicians must be in jail if sentenced, not only oppositors. If you see the movie The Godfather, 80% of the film they are fighting the mafia...