As expected, the storyline the mainstream media focused on from the "Foreign Policy" Motion and Response in the suitcase scandal trial was that one of the co-defendants that agreed to a plea deal, Carlos Kauffman, told the FBI that other people told him that Chavez was "involved" in the alleged cover-up. Interesting however, that the Washington Post did not run it's small piece until Monday, July 7, a day after Reuters's, and a full week after Bloomberg ran theirs. Why the delay and half-hearted reporting? Perhaps because they know, in the end, it's a non-story. My guess is that the defense revealed this not to inculpate Chavez, but to blunt any impact that it would have if revealed during the actual trial. It also supports the defense's claim that the prosecution intends to use such hearsay and other legally suspect evidence only to embarrass the Chavez government.
These mainstream articles do recognize, sometimes explicitly, the political nature and impact of the legal proceedings, but fail to mention that the Chavez "revelation" was found in the defense's Response to the Department of Justice's attempt to exclude all evidence relating to "the Foreign Policy of the US towards Venezuela." To review the DOJ logic that the articles mostly follow: (1) It's OK and "apolitical" to link the President of Venezuela to a still unresolved case of money-laundering, which by the way was undeniably tied to the political campaign of the President of Argentina according to the prosecution. (2) It's not OK to state the "political" fact that the US hates Chavez and would like to see him die his authority in Latin America weaken due to unsubstantiated charges of influencing other countries' elections with suitcase cash. Got it?
And just in case the legal hypocrisy emanating from Miami wasn't quite Spitzer enough for you, a panel and paper presentation was recently held at the University of Miami addressing the new "lack of transparency" and "politicization of legal cases" in Venezuela and other now-leftist Latin American countries. Such impartial "legal experts" as Roger "but he's our terrorist" Noriega and former US Ambassador to Bolivia, Manuel "don't elect Evo" Rocha participated in the panel. But don't worry because the "panel was balanced and all the angles of the state of rule of law in Latin America were observed," according to Patricia "the destabilizer" Andrade.
Is it the sun? The art deco? The rabid fury caused by the sight of Cuba on the horizon? What is it about the Magic City that makes right-wingers immune to reason (and irony)?
