Cristina Kirchner said that Uberti was "an official from the fourth line" and that he never knew his bedroom – 17-08-2018



In the middle of the scandal about the "scriptures of bribes" Cristina Fernández de Kirchner broke the silence. While she said she will not talk about "repentant remiseros" who claim to have seen her in pajamas (referring to Oscar Centeno, who said he had seen her jog in Quinta de Olivos) ni "Former fourth line officials", points to businessman Gabriel Romero – who claims to have paid for a presidential decree ": " It would be very interesting for Mr. Romero to indicate who and how he paid him because nobody ever paid me to sign this or any other decree, nor to carry out any measure of my government. "

Without mentioning Uberti, " he was never part of my two presidencies but he describes almost tourist excursions in my bedroom. "The former official, that said "accused assistant" said he had entered the dormitory "Néstor and Cristina and was full of bags and bags." Uberti clarified that when he entered the dormitory of the department of Juncal and Uruguay of the Kirchners – who lived for years in the Quinta de Olivos – there were no other people in the place .

At the conclusion of the text he confirmed that there was an "extortionary management of the figure of the repentant "and, as usual, the complicity between the" Judicial Power, the hegemonic means of communication "and the" national "government

The complete letter: [19659006] I have decided not to comment on "repentant" remitters who claim to have seen me in their pajamas, nor to comment on former fourth line officials, also "repentant", who never were part of my two Presidencies, but they describe almost tourist excursions in my bedroom. As a former president of the nation, however, I am obliged to speak about the businessman Gabriel Romero – new & # 39; repentant & # 39; – who, according to the Clarín and La Nación, would have paid catastrophe titles for a presidential decree.

Great was my surprise when I began to read the aforementioned decision and even greater my indignation when I had finished reading it. Does that decree 113 of 21 January 2010 have very special characteristics.

Brief introduction to the aforementioned decree. On 6 January 2002, Law 25.561 was passed, announcing a public emergency, the Argentine peso was being converted from the Argentine peso and the national executive was authorized to renegotiate the contracts for works and services. public concessions brought into crisis by the forced withdrawal of the above regime. One of those contracts was that of Hidrovía S.A. whose concession was approved by decree 253 of 21 February 1995 and whose owner is Mr Gabriel Romero.

On 3 July 2003, Néstor Kirchner, Alberto Fernández, Roberto Lavagna and Julio De Vido signed Decree 311, which created the Unit for renegotiation and analysis of public service contracts (UNIREN) in the job of the Ministries of Economy and Federal Planning. This unit had the function to make the renegotiations operational on the basis of the emergency act.

The decree and the waterway 1. On 19 June 2007, during the presidency of Néstor Kirchner, the UNIREN and the company Hidrovía SA signed a Letter of Understanding proposal to reopen the negotiations on the concession.

2. The main problem with this renegotiation was that the application of the rules for the settlement of value added tax (VAT) to Hidrovía S.A. in large debt of the AFIP for the liquidation of said tribute. The company claimed that the rules were poorly applied in the specific case of its activity. In the course of 2008, as president, I said to Mr Romero that this problem could not be resolved in the executive power, because the AFIP would not give an interpretation that implied that a debt would be waived. I told him that I was not going to sign anything without the intervention of Congress because it was tax.

3. Finally, this problem was addressed by a law of the national Congress that specifically interpreted a form of VAT assessment for concessions for the dredging, signaling and maintenance of navigable waterways due to their exploitation. That is, for Hidrovía S.A. Said Law, 26.453, was sanctioned by UNANIMIDAD on December 10, 2008.

4. Only after that law was adopted was the letter of intent signed by UNIREN and the company Hidrovía S.A. It was presented to the public hearing process in which they participated and opinions from users, different sectors and social actors were expressed. As a result, UNIREN considered it appropriate to amend aspects of the proposed concept, all of which were presented in the procedure and published on the website of the above-mentioned Unit.

5. Subsequently, on 21 April 2009, the company and UNIREN signed a proposal for an agreement containing the conditions for the renegotiation of the contract that was ordered by the Exit of Convertibility Law.

6. The office of the treasurer of the nation, whose intervention is mandatory on the basis of decree 311/03, has issued a first recommendation with proposals included in an addendum addendum; the issuing of this authority, a second definitive advice.

7. In the same way, the General National Office of the Nation (SIGEN) also took action in accordance with the applicable regulations.

8. However, the most distinctive aspect of this process was that, since they were delegated powers, the proposal of the agreement came from the power of decision of the executive and its content was compulsorily submitted for consideration and approval by the national Congress through the Bicameral Commission or Follow-up of the powers delegated to the national executive. It should be noted that the approval of the National Congress was an essential condition for the ratification of the Agreement. That is, without a parliament there was no decree.

9. The committee gave a majority opinion in which they made changes to the proposal of the agreement, including a requirement from the ministry of foreign affairs, international trade and worship.

10. After the amendments proposed by Parliament were introduced, UNIREN and the concession company representatives signed the Agreement on 20 October 2009 and set the conditions for adapting the concession contract for the waterway as required by the Public Emergency and Abandoned Act. of convertibility.

11. Finally, and in accordance with Decree 311/03, it was the Executive's duty to ratify the agreements reached and therefore I signed Decree 113 on 21 January 2010.

O SEA that my intervention as president of the nation was limited to the only thing I could and should do: ratify what was done by the UNIREN was done and resolved with public hearings in between, opinions of the Treasurer of the Treasury and of the SIGEN, contributions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and finally, the intervention of the National Congress by the Bicameral Commission for the Follow-up of the powers delegated to the national executive, without whose approval there would have been no decree.

in a truly "repentant" menu à la carte, says mr. Gabriel Romero that he has paid money for the signing of this decree that, after all the process explained earlier, was pa It is obligatory for me to sign. In any case, it would be very interesting for Romero to indicate to whom and how he paid him, because no one ever paid me anything for the signing of this or any other decree, nor for carrying out any measures by my governments. On the contrary, the legal problems I have are because they have influenced very concentrated economic and hegemonic interests which always tried to thwart the measures I carried out in favor of the great people of the economy, of economic activity in general and of the structural debt of the nation.

The evident extortionate association with the figure of the "repentant" performed by Bonadío and Stornelli is simply outrageous, but it has the approval of the highest spheres of the judiciary, of the hegemonic means of communication and of this government which has caused that our country will fall in the midst of a real economic and social catastrophe. They all know it.


Source link

Leave a Reply