Versión Español
Spanish – Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has already declared open war on the Supreme Court of the Nation. Through an open letter on her website, replicated on her social media, the vice president charged against the highest court as a whole and criticized, one by one, all of its justices.
A few weeks ago, her deputy Leopoldo Moreau had already taken the first step in this direction when he assured in an interview that the court was absolutely discredited before public opinion. CFK’s latest statements alerted the opposition, and Elisa Carrió’s Civic Coalition began treatment for the request for political trial. The legislators considered her words to be a frontal attack on the republic and the division of powers.
The one who has just marked a point of no return is Luis D’Elía, who called for an urgent extension of the court’s number to obtain an automatic majority that would guarantee the impunity of the former candidate. According to the Christinist leader, the five members of the highest court should be left “where they are,” but another six should be appointed. In this way, the new ruling majority could dismantle the court’s alleged intention to imprison CFK.
But another issue that drew much attention was the urgency of the delusional plan that the Kirchnerist leader has in mind. In D’Elia’s opinion, the new court must be constituted before February. Otherwise, the vice president could begin the month of March in prison. Regarding her privileges as a senator, the piquetero leader recognized that he does not trust Peronism. His argument in this sense is the withdrawal of parliamentary privileges of former Julio De Vido. The Chamber of Deputies, with several Peronist votes, released their hand, and the former minister of Néstor and Cristina ended up condemned and arrested.
Kirchnerism will surely now come out to distance itself from the sayings, assuring that D’Elia speaks in a personal capacity. But the reality is that in the Christinist verticalism, there is no room for these individualities. Even if his words only serve to mark the court and put the issue on the agenda, there is not much chance that these statements would have taken place without the permission (or order) of the boss.
Discussion about this post