Spanish – “They want to tell society that Cristina is capable of killing.” The Kirchnerist legislator of the City of Buenos Aires, Leandro Santoro, attacked one of those responsible for the communiqué issued by the Juntos por el Cambio coalition after the death of the former personal secretary of the vice-president.
The body of Fabián Gutiérrez, a former collaborator of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, was identified, and he declared his repentance in the notebook scandal. Consequently, the opposition circulated a document to the press in which they referred to a crime of “extreme institutional gravity.” In the statement, Macrismo and its allies referred to a “new crime linked to Kirchnerist power. Alberto Fernández believes that the opposition’s attitude is “canallesca,” “vile” since he does not see any reason to link the former president to the murder.
It is rather ironic for Kirchnerism to denounce the supposed politicization of death because they have utterly exploited the death of Santiago Maldonado (talking about non-existent state terrorism). There are many grave concerns to investigate after Gutiérrez’s murder.
When Fernández and Santoro lose their minds attacking the thesis of “Killer Cristina” (a phrase that was trending on Twitter this week), they also “make it easy.” If it suits the opposition that the vice president is suspected of ordering murders like a mob boss, and Kirchnerism doesn’t entirely dislike that scenario either.
As it turns out, Gutierrez had already testified and did not have much more to contribute to the cause. I mean, it’s not crazy to think that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner didn’t directly order any murders. Defending Kirchner from the murder charge, which would have little solid basis, takes the focus off other issues that could become more grounded and complicate the Argentine vice president.
What does make the Frente de Todos coalition uncomfortable is that the investigation, which likely won’t throw arrows at Cristina personally, does uncover a homicide related to dirty money from the corruption of the Kirchnerist government’s public works.
At this time, the thesis of the crime of passion begins to be overshadowed by another investigative clue: that of a dispute between possible frontmen and heirs to the fortune from the cases of evident corruption. Although the question of passion may have been an element behind the crime, none of this seems to be alien to the disputed fortune in the hands of the victim.
Just because Kirchner didn’t order someone’s death doesn’t mean that she “had nothing to do” with the events and that the vice president is clear of guilt and charge. Kirchnerism’s attitude of wanting to close the case with the first clue in the investigation is more than suspicious, and it is alarming that the prosecutor is Cristina’s niece. The trial should be moved as far as possible from the relatives of the vice-president’s sphere of power and influence. Even if she has not killed anyone, she could be tainted in one way or another.