Rafecas Dismisses Amia Cover-Up Probe Against Cfk

[ben]

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.

The evidence does not support this. This was not the work of a camportista, this was a professional assassin. Possibly more professional than is given credit for, they very nearly managed to make it look like a suicide: one can only speculate what would have been known, and what the official story would be, had Pachter not broken the story earlier than planned, hence the fury against him. It was also someone who got Nisman to dismiss his security detail and have a gun.

No, this is either a special services turf war - as Bradly believes, and as I do not - or this is coming from the government, who know they can now be as 'transparent' as possible, knowing that nobody can call them on this transparentness.

The totality of their behavior - the misdirection and scapegoating at every turn where they can manage it, the blatant disregard for letting the investigative process take its course, the harassment or worse of Pachter coming unmistakably from the government rather than any ex-SIDE, and more circumstantial evidence which I don't remember at this hour - all points rather clearly IMHO in the latter direction.

 

[sesamosinsal]

The totality of their behavior - the misdirection and scapegoating at every turn where they can manage it, the blatant disregard for letting the investigative process take its course, the harassment or worse of Pachter coming unmistakably from the government rather than any ex-SIDE, and more circumstantial evidence which I don't remember at this hour - all points rather clearly IMHO in the latter direction.

I have not seen any circumstantial evidence to link the government to his killing/death. Nisman's claims were false, and they knew it. You can speculate all night long that Nisman knew more and that he didn't put it into his complaint, but Alex Jones isn't a federal judge. The government stood to lose much more having him dead than alive. Indeed, his death might cost FPV the presidential election.

 

[sesamosinsal]

Pachter also wasn't the only journalist to report that Nisman had died before all of the other major outlets. Javier Vilaboa, a journalist in Entre Rios, also published the news a few hours after Pachter. If I've compared their tweets correctly, it was actually Vilaboa who confirmed his death before Pachter, even though Pachter was the first to report that there was an "incident".

https://twitter.com/Urdi24

http://www.informe3....acionales-N1477

From an interview:

Hubo un periodista que también publico algunos datos más específicos de cómo se encontró el cuerpo del fiscal y ahora se fue del país porque dice que tiene miedo, ¿cómo es su caso? ¿Recibió algún mensaje que le pareció sospechoso por haber hecho pública una noticia mucho antes que los medios importantes del país?

El único que brindó un dato antes que yo sobre el tema fue un periodista del Buenos Aires Herald a quien no conozco ni sigo en Twitter. Él se refirió a la muerte de Nisman como "un incidente" pero yo di detalles antes de lo que había sucedido, el arma utilizada, la dirección exacta y otras cosas. Por supuesto que trabajar para un medio importante de Capital provocó que todos los ojos se posaran sobre él, pero si chequeas la cronología de lo publicado vas a corroborar lo que te digo.

Bueno, de todo esto me entero al otro día, cuando ya había estallado la noticia porque en ese momento cuando yo comencé a brindar datos revise todo y había “silencio de radio”.

Yo no quiero minimizar lo que le sucedió al colega Damián Pachter. Tampoco el hecho de que sintiera miedo, creo que el gobierno debería haber intentado brindarle seguridad antes que hacer (casi) una operación de inteligencia mostrando su pasaje a Montevideo y otras cosas. Puede ser que lo de él tuviera sustento; o que haya sido inducido por algún contacto con elementos que lo sugestionaran, o simplemente que no pudiera manejar la sobre exposición, no lo sé. En mi caso no tuve miedo, no recibí ningún llamado o mensaje que pueda considerar sospechoso ni nada por el estilo. Si queres, ese primero que te decía me sorprendió, pero nada del otro mundo... es más creo que el sobresalto tuvo que ver con que por ahí mi señora me podía tirar con una chancleta por la hora jaja.

*Bolding mine

 

[notebook.fix]

The evidence does not support this. This was not the work of a camportista, this was a professional assassin. Possibly more professional than is given credit for, they very nearly managed to make it look like a suicide: one can only speculate what would have been known, and what the official story would be, had Pachter not broken the story earlier than planned, hence the fury against him. It was also someone who got Nisman to dismiss his security detail and have a gun.

No, this is either a special services turf war - as Bradly believes, and as I do not - or this is coming from the government, who know they can now be as 'transparent' as possible, knowing that nobody can call them on this transparentness.

The totality of their behavior - the misdirection and scapegoating at every turn where they can manage it, the blatant disregard for letting the investigative process take its course, the harassment or worse of Pachter coming unmistakably from the government rather than any ex-SIDE, and more circumstantial evidence which I don't remember at this hour - all points rather clearly IMHO in the latter direction.

I totally agree that it was a professional hit, but a sloppy professional ...too many obvious mistakes like the cleaning of the gun to the point that there were no other traces of DNA other than NIsmans' (not even Lagomarsinos' DNA - the original owner who lent the gun) and the use of cleaning solvents to clean off blood etc... the back door was not locked etc. I meant to write that some hot head in the campora or Quebracho gave the orders for the so called professionals to be called in, not that some camporista went out and did it on their own will - these lazy clowns have too many resource$ at their disposal to call upon.

 

[ben]

I totally agree that it was a professional hit, but a sloppy professional ...too many obvious mistakes like the cleaning of the gun to the point that there were no other traces of DNA other than NIsmans' (not even Lagomarsinos' DNA - the original owner who lent the gun) and the use of cleaning solvents to clean off blood etc... the back door was not locked etc. I meant to write that some hot head in the campora or Quebracho gave the orders for the so called professionals to be called in, not that some camporista went out and did it on their own will - these lazy clowns have too many resource$ at their disposal to call upon.

This wasn't just a professional hitman either. This was someone who could engineer Nisman dismissing his 10-man security detail and having a gun in his possession. No, this was not a campora-ordered hit. It was either government and/or the special services.

Bradly, there are two points here that are mutually recognized: 1. The complaint as brought was both quickly dismissed and panned in the media (AFAIK without exception). 2. The government's behaviour subsequent to the murder has been that of one clumsily looking for a coverup.

Your point is essentially the government line: the complaint was weak, therefore, whichever bogeyman concocted this thing against the government to create a scandal then killed Nisman to continue said scandal. Indeed, according to this line of reasoning, the only way to continue it was to kill him, as otherwise his weak complaint would have quickly fizzled out.

I do not accept this reasoning. I am not conversant enough (really not following this anymore regrettably) to point at the obvious hole here, but every fiber in my being tells me this is a lie. I accept that the complaint as brought was not very strong, but from there to the government theory is a bridge that one need not, and I think should not, cross.

On the other side, there is the government's behavior. We can speculate about what would have happened with the complaint had Nisman been alive, whether it would be the same as what actually took place. What is not subject to speculation is the government's and President's behaviour subsequent to Nisman's death. The rampant public speculation about a crime under investigation. The scapegoating of everyone possible. The push for the suicide theory. Etc.

The importance of the tweet with Pachter's itinerary cannot be underestimated - it is unique in being an absolutely clear, unambiguous and undeniable act of aggression directly attributable to the government: it was tweeted by the Casa Rosada official account. If Nisman was killed by ex-SIDE in order to embarrass the government, what beef could the government have - at all - with Pachter?

So you start with the weak complaint as we have it at present, and reason from there. I start from the clear understanding that the govt. is lying about Nisman's death, and reason backwards from there. I think my point is the stronger one - it involves less speculation in the subjunctive, what would have been with the complaint had Nisman lived - but the information available to the public leaves gaps in any theory.

 

[sesamosinsal]

What is not subject to speculation is the government's and President's behaviour subsequent to Nisman's death. The rampant public speculation about a crime under investigation. The scapegoating of everyone possible. The push for the suicide theory. Etc.

Can you delve a bit deeper into the government's behavior prior to his death? (I ask that question with genuine curiosity because maybe I have overlooked something.) Who was scapegoated, and for what?

The only reaction I saw from the government was to deny the case (as expected), and Timerman effectively blew his case out of the water with the Ronald Noble emails. Unless we're going to call Noble a liar, Nisman's claims that the government ever tried to get the Red Notices taken down is a false accusation, and as I've said for the billionth time, it is absolutely fundamental that evidence exist showing that the government wanted to remove the Red Notices for Nisman's case to stand. The Iranians were only interested in the Red Notices.

The "push for the suicide theory" lasted maybe a couple of days, and that was simply because journalists like Pachter himself called it an "alleged suicide." Given the course of events, a suicide was a huge probability. If I accused the president of my country for obstructing justice and the main justification for that accusation was proven erroneous, I imagine that I would probably consider disappearing at the very least...

The evidence at this point seems to point to something else. Thanks Notebook.fix for reminding about the gun being clean of Lagomarsino's fingerprints. According to Lagomarsino, it was supposedly after a call from Stiuso that he (Nisman) requested the gun.

If this government is really responsible, why did they declassify the intelligence surrounding his complaint? Why did they authorize Stiuso to speak on the matter? Why didn't they keep everything classified and claim that it was for "national security reasons"?

The importance of the tweet with Pachter's itinerary cannot be underestimated - it is unique in being an absolutely clear, unambiguous and undeniable act of aggression directly attributable to the government: it was tweeted by the Casa Rosada official account. If Nisman was killed by ex-SIDE in order to embarrass the government, what beef could the government have - at all - with Pachter?

Actually, I think it was posted for the first time on the Telam website. We will agree that it was in poor taste, but it's not an "act of aggression." Kidnapping him, carving AMIA in his back, and beating him would be an act of aggression. Receiving anonymous emails saying that you are dead, your family is dead, etc., etc. are acts of aggression.

The government's only possible beef with Pachter is that he is no different from Lanata or any other anti-government journalist out there. If you go to his Twitter feed, he posts interviews with Lanata and Fabián Doman (both Grupo Clarín journalists), but nobody from the government media. He also links to Infobae, La Nación, etc. Journalists who at least try to be objective are a rare breed in Argentina. Given his connections to the opposition media, the government assumed that he had other interests -- that is purely speculative.

Curiously, in his interview with Lanata, they are very quick to question him on threats. In fact, Lanata asks about threats, and then another journalists asks about them. It's as if they were really trying to get him to suggest that he had been threatened. https://www.youtube....h?v=2ap6KqzETo8 He denies receiving any threats at the time.

If Pachter -- a nobody with 400 followers on Twitter working at the Buenos Aires English daily that no one reads -- were threatened for breaking the story first, why not threaten the journalist in Entre Rios who actually broke the story (that Nisman was dead) before Pachter?

Pachter comes off as a starved "journalist" looking for attention and fame. After his alleged brush with death, he gloats about going from 400 Twitter followers to 10,000. His whole article is full of paranoia and naiveté, but no evidence. Not an email, not a tweet, not even the picture taken of the spy who was supposedly following him. Why?

I start from the clear understanding that the govt. is lying about Nisman's death, and reason backwards from there. I think my point is the stronger one

Yet there is no evidence that the government has lied about his death. This is speculation on your part. The government's opinion on cause of death has been the same one reflected in most of the media. My argument is pinned on the fact that the government never requested the removal of the Red Notices. I can't say it enough: For Nisman's case to be taken seriously, there must be proof that the government sought to remove the Red Notices. Without that, the case is dead.

 

[sesamosinsal]

double post

 

[nicoenarg]

Wow, its great to see discussion carried out in a civilized manner on here.

About alertas rojas. What did Nisman actually say about them, anyone who's read the whole denuncia, or maybe listened to Nisman's interviews quote him on it? Because it is one thing to say that the government was secretly negotiating "to ask Interpol to remove alertas rojas". It is quite another to say that "the government asked Interpol to remove alertas rojas". The former does not actually indicate that the act was carried out, simply points to secret negotiations. The latter says that the government carried out the act, which later Noble said that it never happened.

I'm actually curious as to which one it really is, the former or the latter.

 

[nicoenarg]

Curiously, in his interview with Lanata, they are very quick to question him on threats. In fact, Lanata asks about threats, and then another journalists asks about them. It's as if they were really trying to get him to suggest that he had been threatened. https://www.youtube....h?v=2ap6KqzETo8 He denies receiving any threats at the time.

If Pachter -- a nobody with 400 followers on Twitter working at the Buenos Aires English daily that no one reads -- were threatened for breaking the story first, why not threaten the journalist in Entre Rios who actually broke the story (that Nisman was dead) before Pachter?

Pachter comes off as a starved "journalist" looking for attention and fame. After his alleged brush with death, he gloats about going from 400 Twitter followers to 10,000. His whole article is full of paranoia and naiveté, but no evidence. Not an email, not a tweet, not even the picture taken of the spy who was supposedly following him. Why?

The interview with Lanata took place on the 19th. He wrote his tweet about Nisman around 11:45 pm on the 18th. He left the country on the 24th. A couple of things: It is quite possible that when he was speaking with Lanata, there wasn't yet anyone following him. Second, if there were someone from the government and/or SIDE following him or he was scared that someone was then I wouldn't fault him for saying "no" while still being in Argentina. It would be pretty silly for him to think that his life was at risk and then go on Lanata and say "Yes, they're trying to kill me!". If it were me and I was being followed or my life being threatened by either the intelligence agency and/or the government, I too would wait until I was sure I was safe before opening my mouth about it. Seems very natural to me.

When I moved to Argentina, it took me at least 3 months to start getting used to things. I was so out of my depth, not knowing how things worked, that it was dizzying. And I didn't move here abruptly, it was after a year and a half of planning. And on top of that, I moved here with my Argentine wife. On the other hand Pachter moved abruptly. Picked up and left. So I don't fault him for writing an article that doesn't have much. I would still give him the benefit of the doubt rather than the government since he actually uprooted his life here and left. If all he was looking for was fame, he already got it on the account of tweeting the story about Nisman quite a few hours earlier than anyone else. The fact that he got 10,000 Twitter followers overnight points to the fact that if all he was looking for was attention, he got it that night. The move to Israel is completely unnecessary after that.

Lastly, he did not share all the information in the first article he writes after getting to Israel. Right. Makes sense. He just got there. Its his information. He can take as long as he wants before he makes it public, or not. His choice. The only suspicious thing that happened during this whole Pachter thing was by the government, publishing private information of a citizen to do nothing but to discredit him.

 

[sesamosinsal]

About alertas rojas. What did Nisman actually say about them, anyone who's read the whole denuncia, or maybe listened to Nisman's interviews quote him on it?

From A Dos Voces: http://youtu.be/4nFQ7AsXmf8?t=12m33s

Nisman: El mayor interés de Irán, que era evidente, porque me lo han dicho en las reuniones que hemos tenido en Interpol… A Irán obviamente que si se obtenía la desvinculación de tema le importaba, pero lo principal para Irán acá era la libre circulación de sus ciudadanos. Irán no podía soportar que lo habían echado a Vahidi de Bolivia. Recientemente hace tres meses, por ejemplo, tuvimos una consulta de Interpol Corea del Sur que nos preguntaba “tenemos un pedido de Rezai”-también otro participante del atentado, que fue, imaginese la envergadura, ex candidato presidencial en Irán- que dice “quiere viajar a Corea del Sur, ¿subsiste la captura por parte de ustedes?”. Dijimos que sí. No terminó viajando. ¿Usted se cree que les hace gracia eso? ¿Por qué no se bajan las circulares? Justamente porque Noble dice “no, lo tiene que ordenar el juez”. A tal punto estaba acordado, porque acá hay pactos secretos. Yo no puedo determinar si firmados o no, pero acá hay acuerdos secretos entre ambos Estados y uno de ellos es que se bajaban las circulares rojas. ¿De qué manera se bajaban? En el punto séptimo del memorándum es el único punto operativo. ¿Qué significa operativo? Que se efectiviza antes que se apruebe, o sea bastaba la firma del acuerdo para que les sea efectivo. De hecho, ese punto se hizo efectivo el 23 de enero del 2013 y nada más pasó porque no se acordó. ¿Que decía ahí, se le hacía saber a Interpol que el conflicto -mire cómo se llama- conflicto entre la Argentina e Irán por el tema AMIA se iba a solucionar por (piensa), el término justo era “por común acuerdo por negociaciones comunes...por cooperación mutua entre ambos Estados”? Eso, en buen criollo, en lenguaje diplomático, se le está diciendo a Noble “señor, usted ya no tiene nada que ver en esto, él y yo nos pusimos de acuerdo”. Ya està. Bajelas. Se esperaba eso.

-¿Quién pidió que se bajen?

Nisman: No, no. No hay un pedido escrito ni Timerman lo va a hacer. Pero se esperaban eso. Surge claramente de las escuchas. Cuando le preguntan por qué la demora. Por ejemplo, hay muchas menciones al tema comercial de De Vido. Yo no lo acuso a De Vido. ¿Por qué? Justamente por la prudencia. Porque De Vido interviene mucho en el tema comercial, pero hasta ahora lo que tengo probado es que lo de él es el tema comercial, no que estuviera al tanto de que esto era para desinvolucrar a los iraníes. Quizás el día de mañana se prueba. No lo sé. Pero hoy no. ¿Que quiero decir con esto? Entonces, con este tema comercial, ¿A dónde se quiere llegar? Que justamente lo importante acá era ese acuerdo. Rabbani no puede estar decidiendo este tipo de cuestiones y las terminaba decidiendo Rabbani.

---------------------

On February 15, 2013 Timerman wrote a letter to Ronald Noble (the MOU was signed on January 27, 2013):

“Por otra parte, de acuerdo con las normas aplicables, cualquier cambio en los requerimientos de captura internacional oportunamente formulados a INTERPOL desde la Argentina en relación con los graves crímenes investigados en la causa AMIA, sólo podrá ser realizado por el juez argentino con competencia en dicha causa, Dr. Rodolfo Canicoba Corral […] Es decir que la firma del Memorándum de Entendimiento […] no producen cambio alguno en el procedimiento penal aplicable, ni en el status de los requerimientos de captura internacional arriba referidos”.

It seems Nisman missed the memo.

Ronald Noble in an interview with Pagina12, the one that came out on the same Sunday of Nisman's death:

–La afirmación del fiscal Nisman es falsa. Ningún funcionario del gobierno argentino trató nunca de cancelar los alertas rojos de Interpol. En los últimos dos días me sorprendió totalmente escuchar semejantes afirmaciones falsas que se atribuyen a la denuncia del señor Nisman, a quien conozco. Al contrario, señor Nisman: el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Argentina, Héctor Timerman, y cada uno de los funcionarios del gobierno argentino con los que me encontré y hablé de esta cuestión, tuvieron siempre la misma posición: los alertas rojos de Interpol contra los ciudadanos iraníes debían mantenerse sí o sí.