Argentine top court upholds ex-president Kirchner's prison sentence
Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the fraud conviction of ex-president Cristina Kirchner, for which she received a six-year prison sentence and was banned from holding public office for life.
"The sentences handed down by the previous courts were based on the abundance of evidence produced," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling, adding that Kirchner's leave to further appeal her conviction "is dismissed."
The ruling makes 72-year-old Kirchner's conviction and sentence definitive.
Due to her age, she can potentially avoid jail by requesting to serve her sentence under house arrest.
The decision brings the curtain down on the career of one of Argentina's most polarizing leaders, who has loomed large over the country's political landscape for two decades.
Her arch-foe, libertarian President Javier Milei, welcomed the ruling.
"Justice. End," he wrote on X.
In a defiant speech after the ruling to hundreds of supporters outside the headquarters of her center-left Justicialist party, Kirchner accused the "mafia right" of taking a wrecking ball to her social legacy.
"They can imprison me, but people will still receive miserable wages or lose their jobs. They can imprison me, but pensions will continue to be insufficient, and families won't make ends meet," she railed.
Some in the crowd wept while others hugged each other.
"I feel anger and helplessness, but we mustn't give up, we must never give up," said Karina Barberis, 43.
Kirchner was convicted in 2022 of fraudulent administration relating to the granting of public works tenders during her 2007-2015 presidency.
She denied the fraud charges, which she claims are an attempt to scupper her career.
"Being imprisoned is a badge of dignity," she has declared.
- Power couple -
Revered and hated by Argentines in equal measures, Kirchner rose to prominence as part of a political power couple with her late husband Nestor Kirchner, who preceded her as president between 2003 and 2007.
After two terms at the helm herself between 2007 and 2015, she served as vice president from 2019 to 2023 in the last center-left administration before Milei took power.
Milei's election was seen as a widespread rejection of the Kirchners' left-wing nationalist Peronist movement, which was accused of widespread corruption and economic mismanagement.
Kirchner has been one of the fiercest critics of Milei's deep cuts to public spending and deregulation.
Before Tuesday's ruling, she had been planning to run for a seat in the Buenos Aires provincial legislature in September elections. Had she won, she would have gained immunity from prosecution.
Rosendo Fraga, a veteran political analyst, said he expected Kirchner's political clout to grow if she were detained.
On the left the threat of her arrest has led to a rare display of unity.
But historian Sergio Berensztein said he believed the mobilization for her release would be short-lived.
"Cristina today has limited leadership; she is not the Cristina of 2019," he told AFP.
- 'In prison or dead' -
The case against Kirchner relates to public works contracts awarded in her southern stronghold of Santa Cruz.
She was accused of arranging dozens of contracts for a business associate whom she and her late husband knew.
Her sentence had already been upheld by a lower court of appeal in 2024.
The initial call by prosecutors for her to be jailed sparked demonstrations in several Argentine cities in August 2022, some of which ended in clashes with police.
The following month, she survived a botched assassination attempt when a man shoved a revolver in her face and pulled the trigger -- but the gun did not fire.
The gunman said that he acted out of frustration with corruption.
"They (her political opponents) want me in prison or dead," Kirchner herself has repeatedly claimed.
In March, the United States banned her and one of her former ministers from entering the country, accusing them of corruption.
bur-cb/jgc
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on provisional ballots is dead after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The high court's rejection June 6 means county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out their mail-in ballots have been rejected under the state Supreme Court's decision in October. The case at issue, Faith Genser et al vs. the Butler County Board of Elections, stemmed from a lawsuit filed after the 2024 primary election by two Butler County voters. They claimed they were disenfranchised when the board refused to count provisional ballots the voters cast on Election Day, after learning their mail ballots were disqualified for missing dates. Pa. politics: Erie County Democrats have slimmest voter registration edge in decades The board of elections reasoned the Pennsylvania Election Code says provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are 'timely received' can't be counted, even if the voters' mail-in ballots are rejected. In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found the Elections Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter, and as long as there are no other issues that would disqualify their provisional ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain its decision not to hear the appeal. Attorneys for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not respond to an email requesting comment. 'Republicans don't think every rightful vote should count. We disagree, and now, the Supreme Court has sided with us. Pennsylvanians deserve to have their say in every election ― full stop,' Democratic National Committee Chairperson Ken Martin said in a statement. The case is one of many involving 'paperwork errors' on vote-by-mail-ballots, since absentee voting without an excuse became an option in 2019 with the passage of Act 77. 'Every election, thousands of Pennsylvania mail ballots are voided due to common technical mistakes made by voters,' Rich Ting, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said. 'Thanks to Faith Genser and Frank Matis fighting for their right to vote, all Pennsylvania voters who make those mistakes are guaranteed the right to vote by provisional ballot as a failsafe.' The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center with pro-bono counsel from Dechert LLP represented Genser and Matis in their lawsuit. 'The Supreme Court's determination not to hear this case means that Pennsylvanians who make a technical mistake with their mail-in ballots will have a way to fix the mistake instead of losing the opportunity to vote,' Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said. In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argued the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures. In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.' The June 6 decision is the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on reviewing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision. In November it refused to place a stay on enforcement of the ruling days before the presidential election. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has taken steps to pass amendments to clarify the vote-by-mail law in recent weeks. House Bill 1396, sponsored by Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, would give election workers up to a week before Election Day to prepare to count mail-in ballots, a process that has been a bottleneck for election results in parts of the state, and has provided fodder for election deniers. The measure would remedy other ambiguities in Act 77, such as making clear that county election officials must notify voters if their mail ballots are rejected. It passed the House with a 102-101 vote along party lines May 13. Peter Hall has been a journalist in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for more than 20 years, most recently covering criminal justice and legal affairs for The Morning Call in Allentown. Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, the nation's largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Supreme Court won't hear GOP challenge to PA provisional ballot ruling
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Travel ban raises fears across Maine's immigrant communities
Jun. 12—Maine's immigrant communities are afraid, confused and saddened by the latest restrictions and foreign travel bans imposed by the Trump administration. The crackdown on 19 countries — primarily in Africa and the Middle East — is having a profound chilling effect, whether the immigrants are registered asylum seekers, legal residents with official green cards or naturalized U.S. citizens who have lived here for decades. They are canceling travel plans, curbing social media activity and struggling to understand how the restrictions, which took effect, will affect them and their loved ones in the weeks and months ahead. Many are fearful for family members snared by sudden policy changes that are shattering long-standing reunification plans. Universities and private schools are monitoring the situation to see how it might impact foreign student travel and recruitment in the future. One Maine family that has been granted asylum and has been planning to bring other family members to the U.S. tried but failed to purchase plane tickets so they could travel before the ban took effect Monday, said Mufalo Chitam, executive director of the Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition. "Their plans are being blown up," Chitam said. "It's devastating when you have people who have worked so hard to have asylum granted, and they have prepared for family members to come and now they are in limbo." TRAVEL BAN A full ban on entering the U.S. applies to foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. On the advice of Cabinet members, Trump issued a proclamation on the travel ban last week after a firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado. It stated that some foreign nationals "pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States," increasing immigration enforcement challenges and risks to national security and public safety. "We don't want them," Trump said. The man charged in the Boulder attack is from Egypt, which is not on the restricted list. Trump has said countries may be added or deleted at any time. The current action revisits Trump's first travel ban, enacted in January 2017 at the start of his first term, which targeted seven mostly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it was repeatedly revised to include additional countries, such as North Korea and Venezuela, while others were dropped. Chitam, who came to the U.S. from Zambia in 2000, said the sudden and open-ended aspects of the current ban are stoking fear and confusion, in part because the language and reasons for each country are unclear. For instance, the list includes the Republic of the Congo, a small central African country beside the much bigger Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has a large immigrant community in Maine. "There's still confusion over which Congo it is," Chitam said. "When you put out information like this, it is difficult for people to interpret and understand." DOUBLE WHAMMY The travel ban is a double whammy for immigrants from Afghanistan because, effective mid-July, the Trump administration also has terminated Temporary Protected Status for Afghans who served alongside America's military, some of whom have settled in Maine. Fazel Qaney, president of the Afghan Community of Maine, said the restrictions are having a negative impact on community members. "The U.S. was stationed in Afghanistan for 20 years," Qaney said in an emailed statement. "During that time, there were thousands of Afghans who were working with the U.S. Army, U.S. Embassy and U.S. contractors directly or indirectly." About 60,000 Afghan evacuees were airlifted out of Kabul and flown to the U.S. in the wake of the war. As many as 225 were resettled in Maine, which already had about 400 Afghan-American residents. Thousands of Afghans are still waiting to come to the U.S. Now, some who are already here won't be able to bring their spouses, he said. "There are still thousands of them waiting in a third country for their cases to get processed and finally come to the country," Qaney said. "They feel really upset about it." WIDE-REACHING EFFECTS Reza Jalali, an author, educator and human rights activist who was born in Iran and came to Maine in 1985, said the immigration and travel restrictions will have far-reaching and long-lasting impacts, including on immigrants from other countries who fear being targeted in the current climate. "Who wants to be stopped at the airport and asked questions and have your devices examined — all for no reason at all?" Jalali asked. Jalali predicted the travel restrictions will hurt Maine's economy, making it harder for businesses to fill jobs, labs to fill research positions, and universities and private schools to attract students whose tuition payments and spending habits benefit many communities. "It's sending shock waves across the world," Jalali said. "It will affect companies that need foreign workers and are already dealing with tariffs. It will have a chilling effect on where foreign students choose to go." The University of Maine System enrolled 939 foreign students among just over 19,000 students systemwide during the spring semester, with nearly two-thirds coming from Canada, Ghana, Nepal, China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Iran and Japan, according to spokesperson Samantha Warren. "That data is the extent of what the university (system) is providing to the press at this time," Warren said in an emailed statement. "We continue to communicate and provide support to all of our international students, including those impacted by this and other federal directives." The University of New England, with campuses in Portland and Biddeford, has yet to see any impact of travel bans on its students, said spokesperson Sarah Delage. "But we are closely monitoring the situation," Delage said in an emailed statement. "We are in close contact with our continuing and new, incoming international students, as well as with student groups traveling abroad for academic purposes." HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS At North Yarmouth Academy in Yarmouth, head of school Ben Jackson said they are "cautiously optimistic" that the current pause in scheduling visa interviews will be lifted in time to support student travel for the upcoming school year. In May, the Trump administration paused new student visa interviews while it considers requiring all foreigners applying to study in the U.S. to undergo social media vetting. Recognizing the situation is a real concern for families, the academy has assured all enrolled students that they will receive a full refund if they are unable to obtain a visa due to these circumstances, Jackson said in a emailed statement. The school's goal is to enroll 20 international students for fall 2025, representing countries such as South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Ukraine and Canada, he said. It currently has 13 enrolled, with several applications in process. "As long as visa processing resumes in the coming weeks, we remain confident in reaching our goal," Jackson said. "International students are an important part of the NYA community, and we value the contribution they make to our school." The potential repercussions trouble Jalali, who consults with companies that want to increase their workforce diversity. It affects him on a personal level. "I no longer recognize this country that I came to 40 years ago this month," Jalali said. "It really is so different from the America that lured me back then. I worry about the young people in different parts of the world who won't come here to start a company or work in research or teach or build or even to die for this country." In the meantime, Jalali counts himself among those who won't be traveling anytime soon. "I'm going to stay put, as many immigrants plan to do," he said. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Trump's cruel new travel ban — Again, he seeks to block all visits from a handful of countries
Starting today, the Trump administration will impose a long-expected revamp of the cruel policy that made it very clear during the early days of his first term that the president was not bluffing on his desire to indiscriminately target entire classes of immigrants in his promised crackdown: the travel ban. This time, President Donald Trump has singled out Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for full bans, with seven others restricted. While the authority that Trump is leaning on does exist in the law and has been used by prior presidents, these uses were things like barring entry of people engaged in 'actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burundi.' It was not until Trump and Stephen Miller that a president even attempted to expand this law to claim that entire countries are somehow detrimental to U.S. interests or inherently dangerous. It was a weak enough argument that, during his first term, Trump's first two iterations of what is now known as the Muslim Ban were struck down, only for the Supreme Court to allow a third after the administration threw in Venezuela and North Korea to claim that it was not motivated by any racial or religious animus. This was a procedural trick and everyone knew it; there was no basis for this move other than wanting to keep certain people out of the country. No one has to nor should pretend that the old ban nor this one have anything to do with protecting the United States, just the same Miller's zeal for ICE arrests does not, by his own recent admission, have anything to do with clamping down on criminality but rather taking as many people into custody as possible, for the simple fact that they are immigrants. We would challenge Miller and the other officials rolling out the travel ban to explain why, for example, an ailing Haitian grandmother who wishes to come to the United States to receive our world-class cancer treatment should be presumptively barred from doing so. Yet, we don't really think that they have any real interest in explaining the logic because whatever logic is secondary to the overarching objective of barring some kinds of people from the United States. The administration will claim, as it did during the first term, that there are reasonable carve-outs to these orders, but we can't say we really trust them to apply these standards cogently or fairly. After all, they've already made something of a habit of arbitrary violations of law, as demonstrated by D.C. Federal Judge James Boasberg's recent ruling that the entirety of the administration's Alien Enemies Act removals of Venezuelan nationals to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador were unlawful, and that the administration should prepare to bring those individuals back to the United States. Shame on the high court for validating this overreach in the president's power to regulate immigration, which serves no purpose than throwing red meat to the base and collectively punishing innocent people from whole countries based on vague national security concerns or, to be more accurate and specific about it, their ethnic and religious background, in violation of our principles as a nation. _____
