True to his style, federal prosecutor Carlos Stornelli gave signs that he will not appear this Tuesday before the Political Trial Commission, where he was summoned as a witness in the process against the four Supreme Court judges. Last week he sent a note to the interim attorney, edward casalwhere he told him that he is only willing to testify in writing because he considers that his “functional immunities“. The chief prosecutorby his side, tried to cover with a presentation where he warns that he would inform Stornelli what the president of the body, Carolina Gaillard, notified him: the testimony, according to the regulations, can only be in person. In any case, he does not say that he is going to intimidate him to introduce himself or anything similar. The deputies and deputies analyze ways to follow in the face of the lack.
The summons to Stornelli is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. The objective is to explain why he promoted the filing of the complaint against Silvio Robles, Supreme Court spokesman Horacio Rosatti, and the Minister of Justice and Security on leave, Marcelo D’Alessandrowho according to the leaked chats spoke of two key issues being processed before the highest court (participation and appointments of senators in the Council of the Magistracy) in order to tip the balance in favor of Together for Change, which it even happened. The foot for the summons to the prosecutor was given by federal judge Sebastián Ramos who, when declaring in the Commission, said that he decided to close the file based on what Stornelli had ruled.
What can happen?
If the prosecutor, as everything indicates, does not show up at the Impeachment Committee, after half an hour, one option is to kindly quote it again through a note explaining that the commission’s regulations do not exempt him from making a statement in person, something that is only provided for the President of the Nation, the vice president, governors and vice presidents, and judges of the Supreme Court.
Could it be taken by the public force? This path is provided for cases in which a witness is absent. But at this point, Stornelli can invoke his privileges As a prosecutor, they give you immunity. It was, in fact, what allowed him to speculate with elude for eight months the investigation to which Judge Alejo Ramos Padilla had summoned him in the so-called D’Alessiogate, the investigation into a parastatal espionage organization in which he is still being prosecuted. He only showed up when the impeachment trial for his rebellion was almost a fait accompli.
Which everything indicates that it will happen is that the deputies will have to file a complaint with the interim attorney to start an administrative process that could lead to the impeachment. This will inevitably be a bureaucratic path and one that should intervene — as happened when he was in rebellion — an instructor prosecutor and then an Evaluating Council of other prosecutors.
cross cards
Stornelli gave the first signal that he would not go to the Commission last week, on March 2, when he sent a note to Casal in which he said: “… from now on, I will have to give a deposition in what is pertinent and in what I do to the object of the procedure, for whose purposes, and taking into account functional immunities provided for in article 63, subparagraphs b and c, of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, please arbitrate, from that General Prosecutor’s Office, the pertinent channels and means so that the corresponding list of questions is sent to me”. That is to say, he asked the Prosecutor that he thinks he can testify in writing and asked him to manage that process on his behalf..
Before Casal sent anything to the Commission, He received a notice from Deputy Gaillard regarding the summons to testify where he clarified that the position of prosecutor does not exempt Stornelli from his obligation to appear. What the Law that regulates the Public Prosecutor’s Office says, she maintained, “is unenforceable against that summons.” The attorney sent another letter to Gaillard on Monday where he tells him that he would put that warning “in the knowledge of Dr. Stornelli for his consideration.” In this way, he did not ask for the list of questions on behalf of the prosecutor but he did not intimidate him to appear either. The question is what it will do in the face of a complaint from the Commission. History indicates that at the D’Alessiogate he gave him ample protection.
These days it also has the corporate shelter of the Association of Prosecutors and Officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office who questioned the summons to Stornelli with a wink not to appear. The entity said that there may be a violation of guarantees if the prosecutors testify about their own conduct or questions about the parties to a case. They also said that you can declare only in writing.
Why Stornelli?
Stornelli is the author of the opinion that promoted the filing, in the middle of the summer judicial fair, of the case against Robles and D’Alessandro that had begun with a dubious complaint by the lawyer Gastón Marano, which seemed tailor-made for that outcome. Marano is a lawyer for one of those arrested for the assassination attempt on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and went PRO advisor in the Bicameral Intelligence Commission. The presentation did not focus on the crimes that could be inferred from the content of the leaked chats where the protagonists spoke of the ruling on the co-participation claimed by Horacio Rodríguez Larreta and on the dispute over charges in the Council of the Magistracy, also under analysis. in the court. Instead, it was aimed at questioning Robles for advising D’Alessandro as a court official and without having a lawyer’s degree.
Although he did not produce evidence, prosecutor Stornelli assumed that the broadcast conversations were “the result of criminal activity” which introduced “insurmountable legal obstacles” to advance in the case. In his proposal there was a violation of privacy and an illegal intelligence activity (a great paradox -in addition– in the case of someone prosecuted for espionage). That is why he said that the case had to be closed, and Judge Ramos took it to the letter just 24 hours after taking charge as surrogate of the court 5 (of María Eugenia Capuchetti) who had been left in charge of the matter due to a strange maneuver that removed the file from the original court, that of Ariel Lijo, as revealed Page 12.
the posture of Stornelli is diametrically opposed to that of Ramos Padilla, who received a complaint for the same issue from the Buenos Aires governor Axel Kicillof and, although it declared itself incompetent, it stressed that it should be investigated and that there was no evidence of such an illegal origin of the evidence. He even questioned the sudden closure by decision of Judge Ramos and the authorization of the judicial fair for this issue. Ramos, in his turn, said that he had no choice but to follow Stornelli’s guidelines. They specifically asked him if he had a systematic link to Robles and D’Alessandro and he said no. New chats soon appeared, 56, of Ramos himself with the Buenos Aires minister where they treat each other with familiarity and trust. D’Alessandro agrees to get him a car thatcoincidentally, coincidentally It was granted by the Supreme Court itself last week with the signatures of Horacio Rosatti, Juan Carlos Maqueda and Carlos Rosenkrantz.
more witnesses
For this Tuesday, the prosecutor María Laura Roteta is also summoned, who warned that she cannot go but that she is willing to reschedule her statement. Roteta ruled on Kicillof’s complaint and said that the conduct of Robles and D’Alessandro should be investigated, although in Comodoro Py. Deputy Gaillard informed Casal of the willingness of this official to go personally, so that she appreciates the contrast with Stornelli. The radical Mario Cimadevilla (former senator and advisor to the Magistracy and former head of the AMIA Unit) –proposed by the Civic Coalition– and the secretaries of the Court, Sergio Nápoli and Gustavo Naveira, must also present themselves.
