Rafecas Dismisses Amia Cover-Up Probe Against Cfk

[wild_horses]

What a gene has to do with Rafecas dismissal?

Have you got anything to say about the Rafecas rule? Which point do you think is unsustainable and why? Do you think pollicita should appeal the decision and why?

You seem to have a problem with focus as you are getting away from the subject and bringing into the table Genes and mental strength issues that has nothing to do with a Judge dismissal.

 

[Rich One]

What a gene has to do with Rafecas dismissal?

Have you got anything to say about the Rafecas rule? Which point do you think is unsustainable and why? Do you think pollicita should appeal the decision and why?

You seem to have a problem with focus as you are getting away from the subject and bringing into the table Genes and mental strength issues that has nothing to do with a Judge dismissal.

Only amazing how fast Rafecas dismissed the complaint considering the times of justice here.

 

[ben]

There are hundreds of hours of tapes, some of them disappeared in the 90s. All of them from the SI, which has done more to hinder the investigation than help it move along. The calls Nisman had access and cited in his criminal complaint prove absolutely nothing.

I do not know the details of the tapes, certainly you seem to know more about this than I do.

What I do know is that - unless, as you allege, he was going to go forward with a case he himself must have known was very weak - he must have had knowledge that we do not. That, coupled with his death, and the circumstances thereof - the govt's full-throated push to have it thought of as a suicide (until that became untenable), and the alleged death threats against the journalist who broke the news sooner than the the govt. seemed to want it to break, (not to mention their bizarre and illegal posting of his flight details, by the Casa Rosada no less) - implies that others knew about what he knew, and believed silencing him to be an effective way to deal with the threat he posed.

Because of that, your argument - which I agree on its face makes sense - does not sway me. We all suffer from a lack of data, but everything the government has done since his death begs suspicion.

 

[sesamosinsal]

I do not know the details of the tapes, certainly you seem to know more about this than I do.

What I do know is that - unless, as you allege, he was going to go forward with a case he himself must have known was very weak - he must have had knowledge that we do not. That, coupled with his death, and the circumstances thereof - the govt's full-throated push to have it thought of as a suicide (until that became untenable), and the alleged death threats against the journalist who broke the news sooner than the the govt. seemed to want it to break, (not to mention their bizarre and illegal posting of his flight details, by the Casa Rosada no less) - implies that others knew about what he knew, and believed silencing him to be an effective way to deal with the threat he posed.

Because of that, your argument - which I agree on its face makes sense - does not sway me. We all suffer from a lack of data, but everything the government has done since his death begs suspicion.

We will agree that the publication of his itinerary was reprehensible, and the government's subsequent justification for doing so was very poor. We'll never know why it was really done. It is perhaps the only thing the government did that could be deemed threatening.

But Mr. Pachter's story is very strange. Google his Haaretz article (there's a paywall if I link you directly): "Why I fled Argentina after breaking the story of Alberto Nisman’s death." He presents no evidence for his actions -- not even the picture he allegedly took of a supposed Argentine intelligence agent. He claims one was following him, and that "that's never good news." Quite frankly, of all the intelligence agencies in the world, the Argentines would probably scare me the least. However, maybe prior military experience in the Israeli military makes him more qualified to determine the threat level of intelligence agencies around the world than I am.

If it were really an Argentine intelligence agent, only God knows whose side he was on. CFK ousted the Secretary of Intelligence in December. He wasn't just any old kirchnerista. He was a good friend of Néstor, as well as Néstor's vice governor in Santa Cruz before he (Néstor) became president. http://www.lanacion....de-inteligencia He's also now accused of the same crimes as Stiuso. So, even determining who was for or against the government is difficult with folks at the ex-SIDE.

What I do know is that - unless, as you allege, he was going to go forward with a case he himself must have known was very weak - he must have had knowledge that we do not.

Ummm, but OK, he submitted his complaint on January 14 at 8:45 a.m. I mean, maybe it's just me, but don't you think that he would have made sure that all of the damning evidence was written down before he submitted it? And if the Ks really wanted to shut him up, why wouldn't they have killed him BEFORE he submitted it (assuming the government is responsible)? Weren't they (allegedly) following him around at the airport when he arrived from Europe? http://www.infobae.c...o-ezeiza-nisman

 

[notebook.fix]

What do you mean?

It was CFK's own party who wanted Nisman to present his findings in public. http://www.clarin.co...1287471554.html (He pretty much said it all on A Dos Voces)

All the wiretaps and Nisman's complaint itself were ordered to be released by the government as well. http://www.laprensa....ados-por-nisman

As far as how he died, I am more interested in dealing with facts. So, I have no idea how he died. However, based on the evidence, the government knew that Nisman's complaint was a joke. As stated by Rafecas, Ronald Noble essentially destroyed Nisman's case. Why would the government want him dead? That is, after all, what you guess happened, no?

Sorry Bradly but you too fell for the oldest trick in the Kirchner book. THey played this card in the Boudu Sciccone case and many others. You and I know too well that most of the general public doesn't grasp law - and this plays out perfectly when the government who manipulates 85% of the media directly or indirectly under it's control trumpets out that if the opposition wants something revealed that they should allow it to be televised - Let there be total 'transparency' they scream out.

Two main reasons they love pulling this old tactic:

1. By publicly televising the hearings, Nisman's charge is crippled from the outset cause he is prohibited by law from openly revealing the names of spies in the national intelligence network, if I'm correct article number 25520 states so.
2. Also this move allows the government to instantly turn a serious investigation into a political media circus - something anyone with a pulse would habe been a wirtness to during the investigation of NIsman's murder itself. You distort the case, you mess up the evidence and turn a serious investigation into a political cirus. Certainly something not practised by governments in so called 'first world' countries with an independent judicial system.

So, this leads me to my next point. Unless you have lived in this country for a very long time and you have a good grasp of the language along with all it's subtleties you will miss what the Clarin article in your link intends to communicate to the more 'educated' sector of the general public. Clarin was simply highlighting the first signs, a heads up that the government was once again attempting to stifle or destroy a case by doing the 'television trick' .

Calling for a serious matter such as the AMIA terror case to be televised, something that involves terrorists and publicly revealing the names of spies in the national intelligence network is the fastest way to shut up a prosecutor, especially one who's been living under constant death threats every single step of the way...plus the political point scoring doesn't hurt pretending that you want to televise the 'truth' openly.

 

[sesamosinsal]

Sorry Bradly but you too fell for the oldest trick in the Kirchner book. THey played this card in the Boudu Sciccone case and many others.

Notebookfix, point well-taken. However, he covered the most important aspects of his complaint on "A Dos Voces." Furthermore, the government ultimately declassified the intelligence, which paved the way for the complaint to be published. http://www.elcomerci...ormes-caso.html

The government also did the same for Jaime Stiuso, authorizing him to sit down and chat with Fein. http://www.infobae.c...a-1972-la-fecha Conveniently, his testimony will not be released... Ha.

That said, the government has been uncharacteristically transparent with the Nisman case.

How exactly did they play this card with Ciccone? It's very interesting that you mention Ciccone. Who was the judge that authorized the raid on Mr. Boudou's apartment? None other than Daniel Rafecas.

 

[Pensador]

What a gene has to do with Rafecas dismissal?

It is way over the head of your genetic capacity Wild just keep sipping on that cup of Kool Aid in your hand.

 

[notebook.fix]

Notebookfix, point well-taken. However, he covered the most important aspects of his complaint on "A Dos Voces." Furthermore, the government ultimately declassified the intelligence, which paved the way for the complaint to be published. http://www.elcomerci...ormes-caso.html

The government also did the same for Jaime Stiuso, authorizing him to sit down and chat with Fein. http://www.infobae.c...a-1972-la-fecha Conveniently, his testimony will not be released... Ha.

That said, the government has been uncharacteristically transparent with the Nisman case.

How exactly did they play this card with Ciccone? It's very interesting that you mention Ciccone. Who was the judge that authorized the raid on Mr. Boudou's apartment? None other than Daniel Rafecas.

Ok, with Stiuso, two main points to maybe remember:

1. They hate and loathe him, he's the enemy now...a few days after Ninsman scandal broke out they publicly hung him out to dry and proceeded to discredit him by announcing (in the Casa Rosada) that he's been caught illegally dealing in major contraband...funny cause they knew of his activities for years and only now when he's fallen out of their favour , they expose him...it's almost comical, these characters in the K goverment think we're all stupid..ha ha ha.

2. Under the intense political pressure that the government was under with nisman's supposed 'Suicide' they where desperate to pull out a 'boogey man' - they had to have a scape goat, they can't keep the same intelligence setup, they have to be seen to be chopping heads off. Stiuso was the best chess piece to move. ALso there's no way they could keep any public credibility if they didn't take steps to appear 'transparent'...it's simply political suicide.

EDIT: Also, by publicly destroying Stiuso, they were also discrediting Nismans' case against them. Stiuso according to the goverment was the main source of all the alegations against them (The K Gov)..and so they went out of their way to paint NIsmans' investigation as being based on false info from a dodgy source in the intelligence community...how convenient was Stiuso's head rolling?

In the caso Budu, they know too well that there are corrupt players on all sides of the fence, by threatening to televise the Sciccone case Budu and the government was sending the message that if he goes down , he'll talk & take others down with him...therefore temporarily blunting the oppositions' attack.

 

[sesamosinsal]

Notebook.fix: I am still iffy on Nisman's death. In the first few days, I thought (pure speculation) that Stiuso was behind it. But after doing some more research, I can't be sure. The reality is that Stiuso's allies were being taken down, e.g. "El Lauchon," who was killed by the Brigada Halcón in a raid. They were also threatening him (Stiuso) and Nisman in emails before Nisman died/was suicided.

But I don't see why (Cristina and Co.) would want Nisman dead. It doesn't add up to me based on the circumstantial evidence.

What seems more probable at this point is an SI turf war. Was killing Nisman another way to get to Stiuso, a la El Lauchon? This would explain why Stiuso left the country.

I completely agree with you on the charges being brought against Stiuso. It is impossible that they didn't know what he was up to.

 

[notebook.fix]

Notebook.fix: I am still iffy on Nisman's death. In the first few days, I thought (pure speculation) that Stiuso was behind it. But after doing some more research, I can't be sure. The reality is that Stiuso's allies were being taken down, e.g. "El Lauchon," who was killed by the Brigada Halcón in a raid. They were also threatening him (Stiuso) and Nisman in emails before Nisman died/was suicided.

But I don't see why (Cristina and Co.) would want Nisman dead. It doesn't add up to me based on the circumstantial evidence.

What seems more probable at this point is an SI turf war. Was killing Nisman another way to get to Stiuso, a la El Lauchon? This would explain why Stiuso left the country.

I completely agree with you on the charges being brought against Stiuso. It is impossible that they didn't know what he was up to.

My gut feeling is that Nisman was 'suicided' by a very loyal 'Cristinista' who wanted to protect his boss...the people around Cristina are not very disciplined, maybe I'm totally off track but I don't think Cristina would have asked for NIsmans' head, maybe she had one of her tantrums and started screaming in the room and someone in la Campora or Quebracho acted without direct authorization. In any case, I believe that the responsibility for his death falls squarely on Cristina, she's carefully crafted an environment of hostility towards anyone who thinks different to the 'Relato K' . She wanted him dead, but I don't think she would have been so stupid as to order his murder...then again, it wouldn't totally surprise me given the state of mind she's in.