Were the “copitos” crazy people on the loose or useful idiots? Perhaps that is the fundamental question being asked these days in Justice. The difference is not less. If they were just a few deranged people without referents or political terminals, we would be alone before the appearance of groups of anti-system youth, capable of carrying their resentment to the most extreme violence. If instead they were useless that served some specific political purpose we could find links with groups of Nazi ideology or some other interest that is difficult to establish so far in the judicial file. There are many conjectures, but the evidence to support them is lacking. Nevertheless, it is difficult to continue affirming that it was just an isolated gang of mentally insane people who acted on their own. One fact that should never be forgotten is that they came within inches of the vice president, guarded by a battalion of one hundred members of the Federal Police. How could they do it with a gun in their hand? Why didn’t they run into one of the many security circles that surround the political leader of the ruling coalition before? Therefore, the judge Maria Eugenia Capuchetti and the prosecutor Carlos Rivoloin charge of the investigation of the failed attack against Cristina Kirchner, they requested a series of test measures, which include from the telephone contacts of the accused to the crossing of telephone calls both by WhatsApp and by Telegram. Only when these tests arrive, and others that could be added in the coming days, will they establish a clear line of investigation. “All hypotheses remain open. None was discarded, ”said secure judicial sources.
Before that happens, it should be noted that suspicions about the intellectual authorship of the frustrated attack arose from the political use made by the Government of the episode as soon as it occurred. The intention of the ruling party to keep the imaginary martyrdom of Cristina Kirchner in the foreground is ostensible. In fact, yesterday the President took to the main stage of international politics, the session hall of the annual assembly of the United Nations, the episode that occurred in Juncal and Uruguay, where he slipped that with that fact the 1983 commitment of the “Never again” to political violence in the country. Nothing happened before of such magnitude against the democratic system, he insinuated. Before that, Kirchnerism had even carried out an intellectual patrol on the opposition’s declarations. They came to criticize Patricia Bullrich because she had not expressed the word “repudiation” in her statements after the attack. “I said that it was a serious event and that they later sought political gain. They’re not going to force me to say the word they want me to say,” Bullrich said. Also before the President, official spokesmen directly described the attack, which was not “the most important attack on democracy.” It isn’t true. Just as or more important than that unfortunate act of the potential murderers was the uprising of the military carapintadas in the Holy Week of 1987, that marked forever the political end of the government of Raul Alfonsin. or the later attack on Alfonsín himself, who was shot in the head by a gendarme, also without the bullet coming out. During Alfonsín’s own government, in January 1988, the taking over the La Tablada Army barracks, which left a total of 44 dead among guerrillas, soldiers and police. Closer to home, on January 18, 2015, the prosecutor Alberto Nisman, shortly after he made a very serious complaint against the then president, Cristina Kirchner, and a day before he presented the evidence of his accusation in Congress. Now, the media closest to the ruling party speak of “terrorist groups” and link Argentine politics (opponents, more precisely) with the attempted attack. For them, only a huge national, international and planetary conspiracy is behind the assassination attempt on Cristina Kirchner. In the current circumstances, neither the martyrdom nor the hyperbole nor the overreaction (like that of Alberto Fernández yesterday at the UN) serve to explain anything.
Justice still has to answer several questions. The first one is why the weapon that Fernando Sabag Montiel allegedly used came into the hands of the judge without fingerprints of the. Why were they deleted? Who deleted them? Although there is DNA evidence on the gun that matches those of Sabag Montiel, specialists point out that with a little saliva or perspiration such evidence can be planted. Another more disturbing question is why a Federal Police computer erased the memory of Sabag Montiel’s cell phone. It’s possible to do that on the phone the would-be killer was using, but the team first issues several warnings that the memory is about to be wiped out. Only a brainless person could ignore such warnings from the device. Either the technician sent by the Federal Police, nothing less than to help in the investigation of an assassination attempt, is an inept who does not deserve to spend another day in the police institution or someone intentionally triggered the deletion.
One version stated that the magazine was outside the gun. The gun did not have a bullet in the chamber, which prevented the crime, but it had five shells in the magazine. This information is important, because only a professional could handle a weapon without a bullet in the chamber, but with several in the magazine, without the risk that malpractice would end up committing the homicide. According to judicial sources, the pistol arrived with the charger run from its normal location. A charger does not come off or run just by falling to the ground. Nobody knows until now what happened. Was it always run and therefore unfit to be used as a weapon? Or did he run when he was stomped on the ground? Those answers are important to establish if there really was an attempt to kill the vice president or if it was just a set-up instigated by someone or some. The “copitos” are a band of marginals with almost no education. It drew attention neat wording of chats that were discovered, especially in the cell phone of Sabag Montiel’s girlfriend, Brenda Uliarte. But, were they the ones who wrote them or were they written later? There is a close precedent. In the “Operation Puf”, which was set up to remove the prosecutor Carlos Stormelli, chats appeared between the magistrate and businessman Pedro Etchebest, a participant in the maneuver against the prosecutor. Later, the expert opinion established that those chats were false, written by third parties that were neither Stornelli nor Etchebest. There is, therefore, a way to write alleged chats that never existed between people who had not exchanged messages.
The two main “copitos”, Sabag Montiel and his girlfriend Brenda Uliarte, have official defenders. But it was surprising that the producer of drinks, equally committed to the operation in charge of those two, Nicholas Gabriel Carrizohave hired the lawyer Gustavo Marano. Marano is not an official defense attorney and therefore charges significant fees. Difficult for a manufacturer of drinks for street sale to have the resources to pay for their own lawyer. Who pays that lawyer? How much do you charge? The journalist Ricardo Benedetti spread a tweet in which he announced that there would be chats between Brenda Uliarte and the Crónica journalist Tomás Méndez, who at the time was displaced from C5N for promoting an escrache at Patricia Bullrich’s house. Méndez interviewed Uriarte on the channel where he works now, before the attack. Mendez’s attorney is Frank Bindywho was an active lawyer in the “Operation Puf”, in the failed maneuver to displace the judge Sebastian Casanello of the “money K” cause, linked to Lázaro Báez and public works, and to the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA, on whose behalf he accompanied a Chavista diplomat considered a member of Venezuelan espionage to Paraguay.
With everything, the most surprising appointment of lawyers is the one made by Cristina Kirchner. She appointed the lawyer José Manuel Ubeira. As told in THE NATION the journalist Damián Nabot, Ubeira is a partner of the former commissioner John Joseph Ribelli, whom the Justice accused of having been part of the local connection to the attack on the AMIA. Ribelli was imprisoned and later dismissed, but in prison he became a lawyer. Once released, Ribelli was part of the Ubeira law firm. Naboth further reported that none other than Carlos Telleldin he was about to become Brenda Uliarte’s lawyer. Telleldín was imprisoned for several years accused of having sold the van that blew up the AMIA. It was Telleldín who accused Ribelli at the time of having participated in the sale of that truck. Why are lawyers who were close to the investigation for the criminal attack on the AMIA now appearing around this case for the failed attack on the vice president? Why should the vice president resort to that underworld of lawyers to be a plaintiff in the case for the assassination attempt? Silence. No one is in a position to explain it. For now.
In his speech to the United Nations, the President said something more explicit. He blamed the “fascist violence masquerading as republicanism” acts of violence such as the attack on the vice president. How could you find similarities between fascism and republicanism, if they are antithetical? How, if those who profess faith in the republic are the main critics of fascist methods? Those who point to the republic as a system that must be respected are the opponents of Together for Change. They are not the only ones, but they are the ones that place the most emphasis on defending the principles of republicanism. Was he alluding to them? It wouldn’t be strange. Already Kirchnerism, in its different variants, tried to establish that the failed attack was instigated by the prosecutor’s allegation Diego Luciani. The lie did not last long, because later Justice found chats between the accused dating from last April and that they made references to an assassination. In April, Luciani did not even know what he would say four months later in his closing statement. The third leg of the culprits corresponds to journalists and independent media. Alberto Fernández alluded to them in some way when he returned yesterday to “hate speech.” Opposition, Justice and journalism. They are, after all, the final culprits of what happened in the house of Cristina Kirchner. He failed to remember an essential historical fact: at least since the democratic recovery, hatred did not exist in Argentine politics until the Kirchners took power. The political narrative is almost always an adversary of history.