08/25/2021 18:50
Clarín.com
Opinion
Updated 08/25/2021 19:03
Cristina Kirchner spoke to the judges of Court 8 that she should be judged by the Pact with Iran.
"I just want a ruling adjusted to the law,"
he told them, asking them to declare the entire process null and void so that the trial would never begin.
He did so in a preliminary hearing whose possibility of realization
does not appear
in the Argentine Criminal Procedure Code.
That is, he wanted a ruling
"adjusted to the Law"
, but
the Law conformed to it
.
While Iran has just appointed
another of those accused of blowing up the AMIA an official
- and there are already two of the five who were on Nisman's red alerts - Cristina was
accommodated
: no citizen about to be tried for a crime has the privilege to speak to the court judges before the trial begins.
In the same area, Carlos Zannini, also accused by the Pact with Iran, requested the same, in his
second great accommodation
during this administration.
He had previously been
vaccinated VIP
, which he justified by saying that he is a
“decisional authority”
.
And he also defended the VIP doses for his wife and for Horacio Verbitsky -although he apologized-, because
"he is a personality that needs to be protected by society
.
"
The concept of perceiving themselves as a monarchical caste and solving them -those who govern- who need to be protected first and who does not, contains the not very republican idea that, as the one who governs is "above", it is
natural for them
to access privileges.
That
strong idea
now underlies the scandal over the photos of Fabiola Yáñez's birthday in Olivos.
The President - a professor of Law at the UBA - will argue to the prosecutor that
there was no crime
because none of the people who were at Fabiola's birthday were infected.
A very particular interpretation: that
reckless behavior is not a crime if it does not cause what is expected of it.
It is at this exact point where a
curious window
opens
.
The President's lawyer for this cause is Gregorio Dalbón, defender of Cristina Kirchner and the same one who promotes a
millionaire lawsuit
against the pilots and the star Vicky Xipolitakis for that Austral flight in 2015, where the model was filmed together with the commanders holding the controls of the ship during a trip to Rosario.
The star Vicky Xipolitakis with the two pilots of the Austral flight, in 2015.
Dalbón represents passengers on that flight who feel victims of Xipolitakis' reckless behavior,
even though nothing has happened in the end
.
“The crime consists of endangering; there was no need for there to be an accident
, ”Dalbón himself explained then, in a tone of doctrinal authority.
Just
the opposite
of what he would hold now, without blushing, to defend Alberto Fernández.
It is clear that what the penalty law is
reckless conduct
of putting others at alleged risk.
That's enough.
The young surfer who went to Ostend under the same restrictions as on Fabiola's birthday was prosecuted and will go to trial accused of the same thing:
putting others at risk
.
When his case became known, the President called him an
"idiot
.
"
The law says that
"anyone who violates the measures adopted by the competent authorities to prevent the introduction or spread of an epidemic
will be imprisoned from 6 months to two years
."
The one who violates the measures, not the one who spreads the epidemic.
Clearer, impossible.
Even so, the President and his Chief of Staff have already anticipated their hypothesis that
"there was no crime
.
"
They did so by manipulating the meaning of the law and, incidentally, sending a message to the prosecutors and judges who are investigating to mark the field for them.
Another delicate matter from the institutional point of view.
The lawyer Dalbón - a comfortable man with a high profile, who once said he had climbed Aconcagua until it was
denied
by the Mendoza government - already announced that the President would donate part of his salary to the Malbrán Institute
"in compensation"
for his actions. .
It is a move in advance to close the case quickly.
Alberto Fernández
wants to donate so as not to pay.
What should he "make up" if he did nothing wrong?
What your lawyer proposes is to
buy your acquittal in installments.
The
ushers
of the law are back, seeking the best for the
well-
to-
do.
Time will tell if a presidential donation will reach the government to compensate for so much repeated outrage to the public trust.
