He cannot President Andrés Manuel López Obrador take off the label of “narcopresident” that they placed on him since January 30 after the publication of a reportage in three foreign mediawhich revealed that the DEA it investigated for having received allegedly money of the Sinaloa Cartel for their presidential campaigns in 2006 and 2012, and closed for political reasons. Since then it has been a frequent topic in morning, although the more he kicks in that swamp, the more he sinks and the more injured he seems. In recent days, for one reason or another, the accusations have followed himleaving him in a bad position.
There have been moments of involuntary comedy, such as awarding a journalist a “Nobel Prize for journalism,” which obviously does not exist, confusing the award with the Pulitzer Prize. Or like complaining that The New York Times, which also published an investigation into his alleged relationship with the Sinaloa Cartelhas been awarded another Pulitzer – actually there were three – this week, although he did not find out nor did anyone tell him that the pulitzer most distinguished of all, to Public Service, was given to ProPublica, one of the three media outlets that revealed the financing of the narco to your campaigns in January.
Removing those hilarious episodes, what remains most lethal for his image, revealed by the journalist Anabel Hernández in his last book, “The Secret History” (Grijalbo), which reproduces the testimony of Sergio Villarreal, The Greatwho assured the current Attorney General’s Office and the DEA more than 10 years ago, that as representative of the Beltrán Leyva brothers, when they were a fundamental part of the Sinaloa Cartel, He gave him $24 million for his 2006 presidential campaign., including 500 thousand pesos that he gave him in a hotel shortly before the election. López Obrador has called Hernández and the drug traffickers “vile slanderers” for not having presented any evidence to support his statement.
Yesterday he said: “I have never seen that man who is nicknamed or called ‘The Great One’. I don’t know him, I’ve never seen him. And that lady dares to say that I’m going to a hotel and that I’m meeting him and there she gives me a suitcase. Yes, and I will pass the suitcase to… General Audomaro Martínez (current director of the National Intelligence Center). Let’s see, where does he get that from if I don’t know this man (and I have never seen him?)
Although you can take the president’s side without hesitation and question the statements of criminals – as would be my case – his problem is that he himself gave legitimacy to the words of “The Great One.” On January 23 of last year, the criminal testified in the trial against the former Secretary of Public Security, Genaro García Luna in Brooklyn, and in words more, words less, he said the same thing that he claimed about López Obrador, although the sum of money What they allegedly gave him was a fifth of what they supposedly gave to López Obrador.
The president gave so much credibility to his words that the next day he announced that a report on García Luna’s trial would be presented daily, rejecting anything that had to do with corruption. “We don’t want it to happen at night, (because) it is an instructive process so that it is not repeated,” he stated. “It’s important because it’s very embarrassing. This is an authority of the highest level that was in charge of public security during the government of (Felipe) Calderón and that had a double function… at the same time that it was in charge of public security, it protected one of the cartels or of organized crime groups.
López Obrador has used the words of “El Grande” as a spear against the former secretary, to systematically accuse him of being corrupt, and to suggest Calderón is responsible for omission or commission. “Power, if there are no principles, corrupts absolutely,” he added in January of last year. “The only thing that sustains a good servant is principles.”
López Obrador did not know that the Prosecutor’s star witness against García Luna had said worse things about him 13 years earlier. If the cases were compared, the accusation against López Obrador would be more serious, leaving open the possibility that he received financing for his campaign in 2006 and 2012, as the DEA concluded. Likewise, if the testimony of “El Grande” was key to convicting García Luna, a trial against López Obrador in Brooklyn, he would have the same fate, it can be argued, and would be in prison awaiting sentencing.
Brooklyn should be among his scenarios for when he stops being president, and prepare a legal team instead of crying in public. “What does the DEA have to do investigating the president of Mexico? “Who authorizes them?” He complained yesterday, without knowing if he is aware that high-profile investigations like those carried out against him have to be approved by a special committee in the Department of Justice. “Where is the information? “Where is the evidence?” he asked. There are none, nor were there any in the case of García Luna. The statements of the criminals and a good narrative from the Prosecutor’s Office were enough to convince the jury that he was guilty.
García Luna had no prior investigations in the United States, as there are against López Obrador. He make no mistake president. The hashtag #NarcoPresidente is the least serious thing in front of you.
X: @rivapa
Threads: @raymundoriva
More from the same author:
#Caught #hashtag
