Argentina's high court upholds former President Kirchner's conviction
June 10 (UPI) -- Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation's Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday.
The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner's 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office.
The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the "Vialidad" trial.
Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the "rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress," the judges wrote in Tuesday's verdict.
She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government.
Kirchner was Argentina's president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina's vice president from 2019 to 2023.
She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections.
If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker.
The Supreme Court's decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office.
"The republic works," Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel.
"All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity," Milei said.
The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to "fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state."
She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case.
Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina's first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office.
She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner's friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez.
The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner's conviction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge Emil Bove is dangerous, but let's not freak out
The appointment of Trump apparatchik Emil Bove to the influential Third Circuit Court of Appeals is terrible, deeply compromising the standards of integrity and judicial independence that have been at the core of our constitutional system since 1789. The judiciary is, as Alexander Hamilton declared it, 'the weakest of the three' branches of government. It does not need to be any weaker. But it is not yet the end of the world. The clear and present danger is that the Bove appointment, perhaps the worst Trump has made, is a chip-shot away from our supremely partisan Supreme Court. Only one judge has made it from the Third Circuit to the Supreme Court — the hard-right Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. Alito is 75, at the threshold of a reasonable retirement. But beware, with Bove waiting in the wings, the stage is set for Alito to get off the court. Some of the elements a good judge must possess are experience, intellect, judgment, temperament, integrity, character and fairness. Bove flunks on all counts. Forget that he has no prior federal judicial experience. This has been true of the greatest of our Supreme Court justices, the venerated Chief Justice John Marshall, and the very worst, Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote the infamous Dred Scott opinion denying citizenship to Black people. It is also true of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Louis Brandeis. Fifty senators shamefully caved on Bove, just as they did with the hideous appointments of Pam Bondi, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kash Patel, to name a few. But remember, Bove gets a lifetime appointment, while the others will be there only so long as Trump is. Bove is joined even more closely with Trump at the hip, having defended him as his personal lawyer in multiple criminal cases. A group of former prosecutors wrote a letter urging Bove's rejection and calling him 'the worst conceivable nominee.' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against confirming Bove, stating that his 'political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as an impartial jurist.' Bove makes us queasy with statements that put his temperament and judgment in doubt. What is the temperament of someone quoted by Justice Department colleagues as advocating defiance of court orders with the crude battle cry, 'F— the courts!' What is the judgment of someone who has described the investigation and prosecution of those who attacked the Capitol as 'a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people'? What is the integrity of someone who told the court there was no quid pro quo in the Justice Department decision he led to dismiss the indictment of New York City Mayor Eric Adams 'without prejudice'? The federal judge who had the case found this representation to lack credibility and dismissed with prejudice, stating, 'There may or may not be good reasons to drop this prosecution. But the reasons articulated by [the Justice Department], if taken at face value, are inconsistent with a decision to leave the charges in the indictment hanging like the proverbial sword of Damocles over the mayor.' But even though Trump has cheapened the standards for appointment to the federal judiciary, there is still some hope. Sitting in the Third Circuit, which comprises Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands, Bove will have to come to terms with a complement of 13 judges, seven Democrats and six Republicans. There is one remaining vacancy which Trump will try to fill. But take a deep breath. The Third Circuit rarely hears cases with ideological implications. Because its jurisdiction includes Delaware, where many corporations are housed, many of the cases coming before it are business or corporate disputes. Bove will mostly sit on a panel of three judges, and some Republican judges on the court have shown considerable independence. In a 2020 election case, for example, Third Circuit Court Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, authored a unanimous decision rejecting the Trump campaign's claims of fraud in Pennsylvania, writing that 'calling an election unfair does not make it so.' The MAGA-era Supreme Court is a horse of a different color from Bove's Third Circuit. If not historically a political policy-making body, it certainly is one now. The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself untrammeled policymaking authority. With cases like the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade, the immunity decision giving Trump a free pass for criminal deeds while in office, and the shadow docket decisions giving Trump carte blanche to ride roughshod on constitutional rights without opinion or reasoning, we now have a supremely partisan Supreme Court. Emil Bove is 44. If he makes it to the Supreme Court, he will be there for a generation or longer. But of course, he may never make it. Adults in the appointing authority may make a sounder judgment next time around. However fraught, it would be premature for liberals to wear the hair shirt. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is the author of ' Supremely Partisan,' a book arguing that the Supreme Court has become politicized. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast .
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US condemns Brazil supreme court judge for ordering house arrest of ex-president Jair Bolsonaro
In a move immediately condemned by the US, a Brazilian supreme court judge has ordered the house arrest of former president Jair Bolsonaro for breaching 'preventative measures' that were imposed ahead of his trial for an alleged coup attempt. According to the ruling on Monday by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the far-right leader breached a ban on using social media which was imposed last month, when he was also ordered to wear an electronic ankle tag. Moraes wrote that as demonstrators took to the streets in several cities across the country on Sunday in support of the former president, Bolsonaro used the social media accounts of allies to share messages containing 'clear encouragement and incitement to attack the Supreme Federal Court, and overt support for foreign intervention in Brazil's judiciary'. Related: 'Classic tinpot dictator': Trump exports his assault on democracy to Brazil 'There is no doubt the precautionary measure was breached,' Moraes wrote. The justice, who was sanctioned by the US last week over his role in the Bolsonaro case, ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest in the palm-lined compound where Bolsonaro rents a mansion in the south of the capital, Brasília, with visits restricted to close family members and lawyers. Federal police were instructed to collect all mobile phones available at the property. Visitors authorised to see the former president will not be allowed to use mobile phones, take photos or record videos. A press representative for Bolsonaro confirmed he was placed under house arrest on Monday evening at his Brasilia residence by police who seized his mobile phone. Bolsonaro's lawyers said in a statement they would appeal against the decision, arguing the former president had not violated any court order. The US state department, in a statement issued by its bureau of western hemisphere affairs on X, condemned the judge's ruling and said it would 'hold accountable all those aiding and abetting sanctioned conduct'. 'Justice Moraes, now a US-sanctioned human rights abuser, continues to use Brazil's institutions to silence opposition and threaten democracy,' the bureau said. 'Putting even more restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro's ability to defend himself in public is not a public service. Let Bolsonaro speak!' Moraes has said Trump's tariffs on Brazil and the 'spurious' sanctions targeting him and other supreme court justices were part of an 'illegal and immoral' ruse to obstruct justice that was being engineered by a group of Brazilian 'traitors' who had lobbied foreign authorities to carry out 'hostile acts' against the country's economy. In his ruling on Monday, Moraes noted that despite being banned from using social media, the far-right leader took part by phone in a pro-Bolsonaro demonstration on Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday. During the rally, one of his politician sons, senator Flávio Bolsonaro, held a phone to the microphone so the crowd could hear the former president speak. The senator himself had posted a video on social media showing Bolsonaro addressing supporters by phone – but later deleted the footage. Moraes argued that the deletion was a 'blatant' attempt to conceal the breach of court-ordered restrictions. 'The flagrant disregard for the preventative measures was so obvious that – it bears repeating – the defendant's own son, senator Flávio Nantes Bolsonaro, decided to delete the post from his Instagram account in order to conceal the legal transgression,' Moraes wrote. The arrest order is part of an ongoing supreme court case in which Bolsonaro is accused of leading a plot to overturn the results of the last election, in which current president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated the former army captain. The trial is expected to conclude later this year, with Bolsonaro facing a potential sentence of more than 40 years in prison. 'Bolsonaro is being arrested gradually,' said political commentator Fernando Gabeira on GloboNews. 'The supreme court, consciously or not, is leading him to prison in stages – to avoid a major shock.' In Brasilía, the political temperature has been rising in recent days, with thousands of Bolsonaro supporters on Sunday rallying outside the central bank to offer their support. Many of those protesters urged the US president Donald Trump – who recently hit Brazil with 50% tariffs in retribution for the alleged 'witch hunt' against Bolsonaro – to take further action to help save their embattled leader. 'I'd like to give Trump a hug and tell him: thank you for worrying about us,' said Álvaro Junior, 64, one Bolsonaro supporter who was carrying a sign that read: 'Thank you, Trump'. Metal barricades have been erected around the supreme court, foreign ministry and congress in anticipation of possible rightwing protests or violence. Trump further stoked the political flames last week by slapping sanctions on Moraes, who the US secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, accused of being 'responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights and politicized prosecutions – including against former president Jair Bolsonaro'. Lindovaldo Ribeiro Paulo, a 43-year-old in a red Maga cap, hailed the sanctions on Moraes, saying: 'We feel even more admiration and even love for the American people now.' In Monday's ruling, Moraes said Bolsonaro had 'repeated his unlawful conduct in an even more severe and defiant manner', continuing to 'urge and incite a foreign head of state to take measures aimed at unlawfully interfering with the normal course of judicial proceedings – in an attempt to generate social pressure on Brazilian authorities, in flagrant violation of national sovereignty'.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Why the White House Backed Down From Its First Big Education Cuts
The email arrived at 10:55 p.m. on Friday, July 25, with an upbeat subject line: 'Big News: Key Federal Title Funds Set to Release Next Week.' It was sent by North Dakota's schools superintendent, Kirsten Baesler, who is awaiting confirmation to become an assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, the very agency that had been holding back the funds in question—more than $5 billion—from school districts for weeks. 'Thank you for your advocacy, patience, professionalism, and persistence as we've waited for these essential funds to flow,' Baesler wrote to local school leaders. Like their peers across the country, North Dakota educators had grown dismayed as the congressionally approved money, one of the largest federal-grant programs for K–12 students, had been held up. Some had spent the summer pondering layoffs and sweating over spreadsheets. 'Hopefully, this development will provide greater clarity as you move forward with budget planning for the upcoming year,' Baesler reassured them. She signed the message, 'With relief and gratitude.' That an incoming official of the Department of Education was touting the importance of federal dollars for a heavily Republican state underscores the conundrum that President Donald Trump faces in his attempt to dismantle the agency. On the campaign trail, Trump's promise to 'send education back to the states' was often greeted with applause, and the Supreme Court has allowed the president to go ahead with his plans to gut the Education Department. But the four-week funding freeze—and the backlash it sparked—showed that cutting popular programs for schoolkids can be as unwelcome in Trump country as it is in coastal cities. Quinta Jurecic: The Supreme Court won't explain itself 'After months of being told to 'wait it out,' districts are now supposed to pick up the pieces and act like everything's fine,' Steven Johnson, the superintendent of Fort Ransom School District, in southeastern North Dakota, told me. 'I've got to be honest—this doesn't sit well out here. You can't freeze money that was already allocated, leave schools hanging through hiring season and budget planning, and then expect us to just be grateful when it finally shows up. Rural folks don't like being jerked around.' While the funds were frozen, an informal alliance emerged between rural and big-city educators who pushed back against the president. Lawmakers from some of the reddest parts of the country opposed the funding pause too, an early warning signal to the White House as it weighs plans that might further disrupt the public-education system. If the Trump administration's decision to abruptly cut off the funding began as a trial balloon, it ended as a cautionary tale. In arguing for the dismantling of the Education Department, Trump has asserted that America's schoolchildren have fallen further behind their global peers since the department's creation, in 1979. This is correct, but his proposed solution of sending education 'back to the states' has always been a bit misleading. The federal government accounts for only about 10 percent of K–12 funding; states and localities cover the bulk of the cost. Still, the money that the administration withheld last month—which initially totaled about $6.8 billion—is significant. It represents more than 7.5 percent of the Education Department's current budget. The funds pay for after-school programs, teacher training, English-learner services, migrant-education grants, and STEM activities. Many schools rely on the money to pay educators and run summer programs. Educators across the country first learned on June 30 that the money was being frozen, just hours before it was supposed to be released. In a three-sentence email, the Department of Education told states that it was withholding the funds to conduct a review, 'given the change in Administrations.' The unsigned message came from [email protected] and offered no details on what the review entailed, how long it would take, or whether the money would ultimately be released. The closest thing to an explanation came from the Office of Management and Budget, which asserted in a statement that the funds had previously been used to 'subsidize a radical left-wing agenda,' support LGBTQ programming, and 'promote illegal immigrant advocacy.' Schools immediately began to feel the impact of the missing funds. In Cincinnati, administrators were forced to cancel orders for new curriculum materials and pause some services for students learning English. Some teachers in Fargo, North Dakota, learned that their annual $500 bonus was abruptly being cut. Officials in California, which had been expecting almost $1 billion from the federal funds, abruptly paused operations for a teacher-training program. Back-to-school planning was affected too. In the nation's second-largest school district, Los Angeles, officials braced for 'impossible choices' such as potentially having to shut down after-school tutoring or lay off school counselors, the district's superintendent, Alberto Carvalho, told me. 'For us to organize and budget and prepare for a school year impacting 540,000 students—in addition to 70,000 adult learners—we need to know what our recurring revenues are,' he said. Johnson, whose hometown of Fort Ransom, North Dakota, has a population of 2,200 and is 70 miles from the nearest Walmart, made the same case when he spoke with me from his cattle ranch. 'If we don't hire staff between such-and-such a date, we're not going to get them,' he told me. 'So the delay tactics already have hurt.' In a survey conducted last month by the School Superintendents Association, a group that advocates for more federal support for K–12 education, hundreds of school-district leaders from across the country similarly reported that they were planning to lay off teachers and cut classroom programs if the hold on funds persisted into August. David A. Graham: What does the Department of Education actually do? In Washington, lawmakers from both parties began to relay these concerns to the White House. In a July 16 letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia joined nine other Republican senators—including lawmakers from six of the 10 states Trump carried by the largest margins in November—to urge the administration to release the money immediately. The senators noted that Congress had already approved the funding as part of a spending law and called on the administration to 'faithfully implement' that legislation. 'Withholding these funds will harm students, families and local economies,' the senators wrote. Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama did not sign the letter but told reporters on July 17 that he planned to talk with Trump about the funds during a dinner that was planned for the following day. (I asked Tuberville's office if the senator had gone through with the conversation but didn't get a response.) Meanwhile, local and state officials from across the demographic and political spectrum banded together to advocate for the funding's release. On July 21, a group that included school districts and teachers' unions filed a joint lawsuit challenging the halt in funding. Among the plaintiffs were the Kuspuk School District, in remote Alaska, which has about 300 students spread out over 12,000 square miles, as well as Cincinnati Public Schools, which has 35,000 students in about 80 square miles. 'They do not want to spend their time suing the federal government,' the lawsuit said of the schools. 'They want to do their jobs serving students and communities.' (The case is pending.) That same day, the Department of Education released part of the funding—$1.4 billion for '21st Century Community Learning Centers' grants, which high-poverty states such as West Virginia disproportionately rely on for after-school and summer-school programs. A few days later, on July 25, the department said it would release the more than $5 billion in remaining funds. Federal officials offered no public accounting of what their review had turned up, but they threatened further scrutiny of school districts that ran afoul of federal civil-rights laws and presidential directives. The Trump administration has used civil-rights legislation to go after schools for policies regarding transgender athletes and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The White House and the Education Department did not respond to requests for comment about the funds. Speaking at a National Governors Association meeting on the day the funds were released, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the federal government was 'well satisfied' after evaluating the grant programs under review and that she expected dollars to flow more seamlessly in the future. Although OMB officials had initially attempted to cast the review as part of Trump's effort to root out liberal ideology from schools, Jon Valant, who researches K–12 policy at the Brookings Institution, told me that the White House was never likely to find much evidence to back up those claims. 'When you have a country with millions of public-school teachers across about 100,000 public schools, if you look, sure, you're going to find someone somewhere who's doing something objectionable,' he said. 'But the vast majority of these funds are used in ways that hardly any American would object to.' Ed Hermes, a school-board member in Phoenix, echoed this. 'This is going to Girl Scouts. This is going to softball. I know because my kids are in these programs,' Hermes, a former schoolteacher himself, told me. 'This is going to fund kids getting help with their math homework after school.' The decision to hold back the congressionally mandated funding came as the Education Department has lost nearly half its workforce under Trump, who is proposing additional budget cuts for the agency. The White House has asked Congress to slash grants for migrant education, English-language acquisition, and other programs funded by the money that was recently frozen, as part of next year's budget. If she is confirmed by the Senate, Baesler, the North Dakota superintendent, could soon join that effort as the next assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. Whether she will use her new perch to contribute to the Trump administration's goal of shutting down the department or advocate on behalf of schools that rely on federal funds is a question of great concern to educators in her home state. Wayne Trottier, who retired in June as superintendent of the school district in Sawyer, North Dakota (population 307), told me that he'd recently confronted Baesler about the funding freeze. Trottier said that he'd asked her whether she would fight from the inside against the Trump administration's cuts. 'This is why the Department of Education needs me on staff now and not later,' he recalled her saying. Baesler did not respond to my requests for comment. In an email to superintendents yesterday, she said she was 'pleased' to announce that the dollars were now available, and thanked McMahon, North Dakota lawmakers, and local educators 'who advocated for the release of these funds.' Kevin Carey: Scammers are coming for college students She could have a tough time in Washington making the case for Trump's proposed cuts. On Thursday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that rejected Trump's plan to scale down the Education Department. The bill also included language essentially banning the Trump administration from pursuing another funding freeze for K–12 schools next year. It passed by a 26–3 margin and now heads to the full Senate for a vote. The Trump administration could also continue to face resistance from around the country. In my conversations with school officials from both urban and rural districts, I frequently heard them making the case for each other. Johnson, who serves on the board of the National Rural Education Association, which advocates for schools in remote areas, stressed the crucial role the department plays in defending the civil rights of minority students and immigrants—of which there are few in his town. 'Why are they picking on the Hispanics?' he said at one point. Luisa Santos, who serves on the school board in Florida's large and very diverse Miami-Dade County, told me that without the Education Department, smaller districts would struggle the most. 'The federal government is able to support extremely rural areas—areas that, frankly, I don't think could generate that funding on their own if they needed to,' she said. This urban-rural alliance could be tested, however, as Trump aims to move forward with his broader education agenda, which includes advancing school-choice vouchers, filing lawsuits against schools over transgender policies, and promoting what the White House has called 'patriotic education.' Some educators I spoke with feared that long-standing cultural divides over immigration, race, gender, sexuality, and how to teach American history could create fissures among school districts that have found common cause in advocating for broadly popular programs such as summer school. The administration's decision to end the funding freeze, these sources said, could ultimately be a tactical retreat ahead of a more aggressive push to demolish the Department of Education. 'It's a half-sigh of relief,' Santos said about the release of federal funds, adding that a 'roller coaster of unknowns' still awaits educators as the new school year begins. 'I don't think this is the end at all.'
