13 July 2015
Cristina Kirchner unveiled an extensive interview held with her in March by the prestigious magazine The New Yorker, where she spoke about the pact with Iran and the mysterious death of Alberto Nisman, who denounced her for alleged concealment in the AMIA case.
“Very long and very bad. Very, very bad, very bad,” the President said about the presentation in court by the former head of the UFI-AMIA four days before he turned up dead with a bullet to the head in his apartment at the Le Parc Towers. “It was totally rejected because it lacked evidence and grounds,” she said.
“The fact is that the complaint from prosecutor Nisman, for me, has more to do with the changes that occurred in the Secretariat of Intelligence in late December than with anything else. In his safe, he had saved a presentation to the United Nations saying something exactly contrary to what he said when he filed his complaint. He returned unexpectedly from a trip, filed a complaint,” said the President.
In January, Nisman denounced Cristina Kirchner, Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, Deputy Andrés Larroque, the picketing leader Luis D’Elia, the leader of Quebracho, Fernando Esteche, alleged agent Jorge “Yussuf” Khalil, former prosecutor Hector Yrimia and alleged spy Ramón Allan Bogado, for mounting a criminal plan to cover-up for the Iranians accused in the bombing of the AMIA. The late prosecutor utilized thousands of wiretaps to make his presentation, which was dismissed in May by the Court of Cassation.
“The wiretaps are unintelligible, they prove absolutely nothing, they are nothing but conversations between characters of third or fourth or fifth rank who have absolutely nothing to do with any of the people who are part of the government,” said the President.
After she defended the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Tehran to investigate the attack on the AMIA, the President was asked if she thought Iran had “responsibility” in the attack in 1994: “Obviously I think that Iran had to do with it, but this is why I, as President, would be asking them to extradite [the Iranian suspects]. ”
The head of state, who traveled to Paraguay to participate in a large mass given by Pope Francis, published the complete transcript on her official website of the interview she gave on March 11, upon her return from the tour of China, with journalist Dexter Filkins in the Olivos residence. She also posted a video of the nearly two-hour interview.
The American magazine – which earlier this year sharply criticized the controversial tweet by Cristina Kirchner during her trip to China- hasn’t published the article yet. “A big hello to Dexter Filkins for the excellent chat that we had. An oft-honored journalist who in 2009 won a Pulitzer,” said the President through her Twitter account.
Besides defending herself from Nisman’s accusations, the President – who has provided few interviews during her terms in office- referred to the economic “model” of Kirchnerism, the human rights policy of the Government and her ties with former President Nestor Kirchner.
Below is an overview of the most important statements from the President during the interview with The New Yorker:
- The complaint of Alberto Nisman. “But the complaint itself, the complaint in itself, I am convinced that prosecutor Nisman did not write it, when you read the document … Sure, it is an almost a journalistic view. It’s not legally grounded, it is something that was done by someone with more of a broadcast journalism take than a legal standard “
- The death of the prosecutor: “Honestly, I’ve heard that it was Iranian commandos, I heard that it was a crime of passion, but I have not heard anyone telling me nor could one think that such things really have to do with this. I really think that is an absolutely self-interested view and it does not correspond to reality at all. For a very simple reason, and since we are in “Sherlock Holmes” mode, let’s ask a question to Sherlock Holmes. Tell me, who does the death of prosecutor Nisman hurt the most after he’d denounced the President, the Foreign Minister, a national Deputy, of betraying their country and conspiring with the Iranians? Who is harmed more by the death of prosecutor Nisman? Answer me, Sherlock Holmes.”
- Is Iran responsible for the bombing of the AMIA? “According to what the Argentine justice system says, I have to say yes, or I wouldn’t have signed the agreement. And if you don’t think so, if I thought that the Argentine justice system was wrong, that it was making an erroneous accusation. In any case we have to say one thing: in my country, no one is guilty until he is convicted by a final verdict. I don’t know how it is in your country, but obviously I think that Iran had to do with it, but this is why, as President, I would be asking to extradite them. I have to comply with the judge’s orders to seek the extradition of so and so from this or that place, who are their partners or Iranian citizens, obviously, but it would be almost absurd.”
- The pact with Iran: “If the deal we signed was declared constitutional in Argentina, we -under UN conventions, because don’t forget that it is a bilateral agreement under which the regulation is from international treaties and the others. If the treaty could be implemented, which never got underway, we would be able to demand in the UN that it be given honored as a bilateral treaty put together in the framework of international conventions that the UN establishes. Within the framework of Resolution 1373 of the United Nations, for example. We would be in a position, but we need it to be declared constitutional in Argentina so that allows me to demand that Iran approve it and comply with it, now, if they block it on me here, it is clear that there are interests, interests that may not want it and maybe it would be more convenient to geopolitical interests or interests that intervened in Argentina “
- The wiretaps from the Nisman complaint: “They are totally discredited by the judge himself from the case who said that the wiretaps are not proof of anything, they are also with people whom I personally do not know, that Mr. Khalil that appears in the wiretaps is more closely connected with the Government of the City, his whole family is employed by the City Government. The other gentleman whose name I don’t remember who they said was part of intelligence, it does not exist, nor does he have any connection. In other words, in reality, the wiretaps are unintelligible, absolutely do not prove anything, nothing but conversations between characters of third or fourth or fifth category that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the people who are part of the Government […] Moreover, I think the wiretaps were set up.”
- The role of Luis D’Elia: “First, you should know that the person you mentioned, Luis D’Elia, is a supporter of Iran, there was no need to conduct a wiretap nor any kind, you’d just have to go and turn on the radio or TV and see the things that he said.”
- What happened to Nisman? “I have no proof because I am not on the case. I am neither prosecutor nor judge. Read the letter, please, I make an assessment of a political character, because I think there was a political maneuver against the government. Then, those that evaluate the evidence or cases are in the Prosecution. I invite you that for the AMIA case, speak with Dr. Canicoba Corral and on the Nisman case, talk with prosecutor Fein or the judge of the case. The political assessment has to do with a huge political maneuver against the government with national ramifications and impact also internationally in situations that are being seen today in the Middle East, the United States and others, I recommend reading my second letter. And if that is not enough, the version of my speech in Congress on the first of March, where I explained not only to a journalist but to 40 million Argentines what the President thinks happened with that “
- The surprising shift over the death of the prosecutor:.. “No. No, no, no Dexter, bad information, bad information, bad information, bad information This is my first [letter], transcribed poorly, as the Argentina press does, it misinforms for you to say anything. This is my letter in English published on the internet. What does that say? Okay, it’s a present for you, take it. It says, with question marks, “I never thought”. And here I have the other. This is when the complaint became known, when I read the denunciation, because the prosecutor’s complaint was published after his death, then things were understood a little more. Both. I never changed my mind. “