164 thoughts on “Aponte for Beginners

  1. Good account. Just a detail: I think you did not explain clearly from where the DEA plane departed. Some pendejos sin fronteras may think the DEA pilots secretly landed in Los Teques – “violando la soberanía, pues” and Aponte Square slipped in there, when in reality he firstly took a plane to Costa Rica without any hassle.

  2. Nice piece. One observation, though. The AN is not 100% chavista, as it might be inferred from the sentence “the National Assembly, which is Chavista through and through”.

  3. Great work Toro! Just one small thing missing: any shred of evidence to support anything Aponte Aponte said, and that you’ve repeated unquestioningly.

    • Quienes pruebas de todos los procesos enmañados
      encabezados por ese tipejo? Quieres pruebas de su profunda amistad
      con todos los otros milicos, empezando por el duce Chávez?
      You must be joking

        • Sure he has lied through his teeth, just like any other Chavez honcho…only that this one has decided to talk…as you say “se le cayó la careta”…how many have done so and how many will keep following?
          We have said it a zillion times: this guy is a crook. Still, he was always a crook and he was very closely associated with the Über-crooks, Chávez and his clan.
          Or are you going to deny this? Are you going to say he was yet another CIA agent?

            • Evidence for what? For what you want? It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t have evidence for a specific detail. There is plenty of evidence he manipulated things according to what the military wanted. It is you who doesn’t understand this. Reasoning is not a strength of Chávez’s followers…you will say Chávez didn’t know Aponte was following orders for whatever Chávez wanted.
              Whatever.
              Chris, what are you going to do once Chávez is not president of Venezuela? Is your daddy going to find you a good job?

            • Now now Kepler, settle down. You might get high blood pressure.

              What I’m asking you for is pretty simple: EVIDENCE You either have it or you don’t.

            • Hey get a clue, you have any experience with the venezuelan justice system? Idiot.

              By the way, in the United States, oral testimony admtted in court is evidence. That’s basically how it works.

              You are an apologist for a human rights nightmare.

            • Funny how angry you guys get when asked to provide any evidence. Also funny how pathetically easy it is to punch holes in your nonsense.

            • I taught evidence at a law school this year. A statement by a witness of what he has seen or heard personally is evidence. Claiming otherwise is wilful blindness.

            • Great. So the government’s statements that they did not do any of the things Aponte said they did is evidence that they are innocent.

              Case closed!

        • Chris,
          When did you stop believing in Aponte? When did he stop being a friend of yours?
          When did he stop being a friend of Adan Chávez? Seen the pictures how they were hugging all the time?

            • Well, if you had any evidence to support that claim, then one might believe you.

              Otherwise, you’d have to explain why at some point he suddenly wasn’t “their guy” anymore. Toro says that he “seems to have stepped on some very important toes”, but, as usual, doesn’t provide a shred of evidence to back it up.

            • No, what we like is that the PUS put this guy there, fed him and praised him all the while knowing what a piece of work he was.

              The evidence presented goes back YEARS, you moron. Would you have us believe it was all of a sudden “discovered” three weeks ago. Who’s sucking thumbs now?

            • Oh please Roberto, do show this evidence you are talking about. Otherwise, continue sucking thumb.

            • OMG!! The DEFENDERS of Chavez argue that “We appointed a drug lord to the Supreme Court! And we never prosecuted him either!”

              PART TWO
              “But now that he has said bad things about all of us, we are really mad! We will blacken his name forever!”

            • Let me see if I understand this backwards logic. If anyone who is appointed by you turns out to commit a crime that means that you knew they were going to commit that crime when you appointed them?

              Jeffry apparently needs some classes in basic logic.

        • Get a Clue, If you’re implying that Toro did not address the lying issue, please refer to:

          “These incendiary revelations have yet to be corroborated, and there’s room for being skeptical of a man as corrupt as Aponte freely admits to have been. But it’s significant that so far the Venezuelan government, rather than denying Aponte’s allegations, has mostly chosen to attack him for disloyalty, for breaking the code of omertà that defines Chavista justice.”

          • Yes, I noticed he said this at the very end, after he spent the whole article restating Aponte’s accusations as if they were plain truth. The whole piece is an utter hack job. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a guy who still can’t even admit that the 2002 coup was pre-planned. Well, its only been 10 years… maybe after 20 years he’ll be able to finally admit the truth.

            • Get a Clue, what is your evidence, besides what some people may be lying about that the 2002 was pre-planned? And if they are true evidences, why have no charges been pressed? As far as I know, they are not guilty. No denial, just not guilty until proven otherwise in a valid court of law.

              By the way, when you state, “The whole piece is an utter hack job” are you *again* implying that Toro did not mention address the issue of credibility? That seems hacky on your part. And is your mentioning the 2002 coup again your way of sidestepping Toro’s counter: “But it’s significant that so far the Venezuelan government, rather than denying Aponte’s allegations, has mostly chosen to attack him for disloyalty, for breaking the code of omertà that defines Chavista justice.” Care to address that?

              Oh, almost forgot, are you still supporting a murdering, ex-con, coupster, chavez? How come you never ask for evidence of that?

            • Oh boy, sounds like Torres is joining the coup-denying camp now too.

              Let me remind you Torres, that while the Carmona dictatorship was shooting protestors in the streets of Caracas (more than 60 dead on April 13th according the Amnesty International), Capriles’ running mate was on live television with the coup leaders discussing how they had planned it all along. The fact that Leopoldo isn’t sitting in jail right now is because Chavez decided to be reconciliatory after the coup instead of going after everyone involved.

              As for Toro’s nonsense:
              “But it’s significant that so far the Venezuelan government, rather than denying Aponte’s allegations, has mostly chosen to attack him for disloyalty, for breaking the code of omertà that defines Chavista justice.”

              I didn’t address this because it is a non-sequitur. The argument is that Aponte’s allegations must be true because of how the Chavista officials have responded to them. If you can’t understand why that is an illogical argument then I’m not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

            • Get a Clue,

              Not joining now, told you before, until charges are pressed, treated as innocent; then until court determines otherwise, not guilty. Are you suggesting that we change that basic legal premise?

              And did you just state that chavez interfered with the legal processing of murdering wannabe coupsters so that they could go scott-free?

              As for Toro’s “non-sequitur”, assuming it is, care to address the government’s reaction anyway?

              And did you just avoid addressing your support for a murdering, excon, coupster, chavez, while thinking that he is also aiding and abetting other murdering coup mongers by abusing and going beyond his powers?

              Let’s see which ones of the above you avoid; it’ll be telling.

            • Thanks Torres, for demonstrating how utterly dishonest you are. So now your defense is that it doesn’t matter what really happened, or what evidence there is. No, the only thing that matters is if those people WERE ACTUALLY TRIED for those crimes!

              Well, with that logic I guess neither Gomez, nor Perez Jimenez were ever guilty of anything… because following Torres’ BRILLIANT logic…. a court never determined that they were guilty!

              Shit, I guess that also means that Joseph Stalin was also innocent of any crimes, regardless of what the evidence says, because a court never found him guilty! I could go on and on with Torres’ ridiculous reasoning, but I think you get the point.

              Why would I address a non-sequitur? How about you make a logical argument and I’ll respond to that ok?

              As for your last paragraph, its pure red herring and ad hominem. Who I personally support has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, nor is it relevant. I actually don’t support anyone in Venezuelan politics, nor do I vote. I’m just fascinated by the Venezuelan opposition and their incredible capacity to deny reality while staring it in the face.

              BTW, you guys still clinging to the ONLY poll that even gives Capriles a chance?

              http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_presidenciales_de_Venezuela_de_2012#Encuestas

              I mean seriously, it is incredible that you guys would look at this list of polls and STILL believe that your man is even close. But hey, that’s what makes you guys so damn interesting.

            • Get a Clue, you accuse me of dishonesty but you’re the one “putting words in my mouth” and then taking it to the absurd. I specified: “treated as innocent” not that they were. Basic premise of rule of law. With that, you avoided answering the question, as expected: so, do you suggest we treat them as guilty before they’re even charged?

              Secondly, your avoiding a perfectly valid issue with the excuse that you won’t answer it just because it was used as part of a “non-sequitur” is also telling. Just tell us what you think, even assuming that Aponte is lying, if you so wish, about the government’s reactions to Aponte’s statements? You’ve told us what you think of oppositon leaders’ reactions to the videos you’ve presented of 2002, and you’ve asked us what we think, so go ahead and answer the same about the government and Aponte.

              Thirdly, you also avoided the question regarding your support for a murderous, excon, coupster, chavez. This one you claim is irrelevant, yet your repeated gripe is that others do not acknowledge that political players that they support were supposedly involved in the planning of a coup, yet you won’t acknowledge that the political player that you support was definitely involved in a murderous coup. Your wordplay with the word “support” is also telling. It’s clear that I’m not using the word to mean any of its meanings other than

              Support
              “7. to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc); subscribe to: to support a political candidature ” [Collins, World English Dictionary]

              So, your lack of acknowledgement is more than relevant. Practise what you preach, or quit asking others to practise it when they call you on it. Are you going to acknowledge that you support a murderous, excon, coupster, chavez?

              Finally, you avoided one topic completely. I knew it would be telling which one it was. You all but acknowledged that chavez influenced the legal process to prevent certain people from getting processed for a murderous coup attempt, but then won’t acknowledge it straight up. The reason that’s telling is that it is precisely the one question that implies that you know that Aponte is telling at least some truth. So thanks for that.

              Remember that fellow chavistas are reading what you write, and I believe that right now they’re thinking that you’re doing their movement more harm than good. As far as I’m concerned, keep it up. Let’s see what you avoid in your next comment.

            • Torres,

              I didn’t realize I was debating someone with such limited mental capacity. The question was never about how coupsters should be “treated” but simply if the 2002 was pre-planned by opposition forces. Your repeated attempts to deny this have reached such ridiculous levels that you’ve made a total fool of yourself over and over again. The courts don’t write history Torres. Amazing that I have to explain this to you, but there are plenty of things that happen in the world which never are decided upon by a court. It doesn’t mean they never happened. Obviously, it is waste of time to even talk to someone who is capable of such insane arguments.

            • Get a Clue, thanks again for stating that my mental state is quite diminished, because that rules out my being dishonest, as per your alternatives. So, thanks for acknowledging my honesty in all this matter.

              As to all the questions you avoided, it shows that you are intelligent enough to not continue harming chavismo with your statements, but (going back to your alternatives of stupid or dishonest) implies that you must be very dishonest in your argumentation, given your demonstrated intelligence.

              We can deduce, then, that you acknowledge chavez interfering in the opposition leaders not having been processed for the 2002 coup, which implies that he interfered with independent branches of government in a way that corroborates some of Aponte’s declarations, which in turn supports the conclusion of your dishonesty in demanding evidence when you already know there’s truth in what has been confessed.

              We can also conclude that you are busy supporting the murderous, convicted, coupster, chavez, who you also believe uses his influence to keep people who you claim are murderous, coupsters from being charged. Please, stop wishing such kinds of criminals on Venezuela.

              We’ll leave it at that, then. Thanks for the exchange.

          • BTW, here’s a few more people who are innocent of any crimes according to Torres’ logic:

            Raul Reyes
            Muammar Gaddafi
            Fidel Castro
            Pinochet
            Francisco Franco
            Bashar al-Assad
            Manuel Marulanda

            You’re a genius Torres. Really. You should try to make it a little more difficult (and a little less fun) to destroy your arguments.

            • They should all be *treated* as innocent until at least charged, so for all intents and purposes, they are.

              “You’re a genius Torres.” I know, I know, but thanks anyway.

            • The question was never about how they should be “treated”. It was about whether or not they were involved in a criminal act.

              Using your logic, none of the above people were involved in any criminal acts because they were never tried for it.

              Seriously Torres, you’re either extremely stupid, or capable of extreme dishonesty. I think we both know which one it is.

            • Chris, you are very worried because of Chávez’ health. You are so worried that you are coming here more often than you did in 2007. Poor Chris!

            • Get a Clue,

              If you are asking about whether they were involved in a criminal act, the answer is the same as with Aponte, we don’t know, but clearly there is enough admissions and oral information to warrant an investigation. If you want us to *conclude* as if we were judges or jury as to whether they were involved in a criminal act, we’re going to require of you what you require in the Aponte case, evidence other than oral accounts.

              Note that jst because we treat people as innocent does not imply that they are. There is, furthermore, a distinction between the legal declaration of innocent versus not guilty. Going back to my logic, ignoring the indicator that they were not tried (in fact, not even charged) is a slippery slope towards judgement without due process, so I rather my logic on this matter than yours who wishes to establish guilt without evidence, nor due process. Keep showing your true colors…

              As to whether I’m stupid or dishonest, you’re the one who said I was genius, though you meant it sarcastically, so that rules out dishonest. Thanks for that.

            • We don’t know if Gaddafi killed protestors in Libya? We don’t know if al-Assad is killing people in Syria right now? We don’t know if Francisco Franco committed crimes in Spain?

              Well, that pretty much proves it Torres. You’re dishonest AND mentally challenged.

              In other news, the jury is still out on who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, and who invaded Poland in 1939, because no court has ever given a verdict on either one!

              This is fun Torres. Let’s see how long you can try to stick to this pathetic argument, no matter how much dishonesty it requires.

            • Get a Clue, what you demonstrated is that you believe in awarding each of the persons responsible for those acts with miserable sentences without due process in a valid court of law. As far as I’m concerned they all deserve their day in court.

              It’s no wonder you support chavez, a murderous, excon, coupster who you believe committed the acts of which Aponte accuses him.

            • Nice try Torres. Its fun to watch you squirm and flail around manipulating anything you can grasp ahold of.

              I never said what I think should happen to the people responsible for the 2002 coup. All I’ve said is what should be obvious to any reasonably honest person: that the lack of a trial and conviction doesn’t mean that a crime wasn’t committed, and that we can’t know what happened.

              Presidents and political leaders give pardons and immunity to individuals all the time. Does that mean those individuals never committed any crimes because they were never tried for their crimes?

              Seriously Torres, you’ve made some really stupid arguments in the past, but this has got to be among the stupidest.

            • Get a Clue,

              Presidents give pardons and immunity but not punishment without trial, unless, of course, he uses your kind of logic, you know, the kind that got Bush his war in Iraq; it’s surprising to see you supporting that kind of thinking. Guilty until even if never proven, yeah that just about sums up the murderous, excon who launched a coup against a popularly elected president. You keep showing your true colors. And you keep avoiding mentioning your support for someone who interferes with the legal process to allow to go free people you believe to be murderous, wannabe coupsters, supporting Aponte’s declarations on the matter.

            • Who said anything about punishment without trial? You’re not very bright are you Torres?

            • Get a Clue, ironic that you’re the one asking a question because you don’t understand something yet accuse me of not being very bright. I’ll answer; read it slowly.

              Your logic is about taking actions, such as presidents do, without trials, and that that does not mean the individuals involved never committed any crimes. The problem with your logic is that it leads to a slippery slope whereby actions can be taken, not just towards affording greater freedom, as you believe chavez did with people you believe to be murderous wannabe coupsters, but also towards affording less freedom, even death, such as Bush did with Saddam. Your logic allows for abuse both ways, mine defends the day in court rights at both ends.

              I can guess why you have a hard time with this; you support chavez, a murderer, excon, coupster? Your two-facedness shows when you try to make others feel bad for supporting people less bad that the one you support. When I say people less bad I do mean even if we assume your accusations about them are true.

          • Pérez Jimenez was convicted of embezzlement and spent several years in jail. Its even on Wikipedia.

            • Wow, you’ve proven it then CACR! And I guess Gomez, well he didn’t do any bad things because… well…. no court ever found him guilty.

              Seriously, do you guys know how freaking stupid you look making these arguments?

            • Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Venezuelan History knows that Pérez Jimenez was in prison for embezzlement for several years, he was extradited from the US (they dont always protect criminals) after a very notorious judicial battle https://law.resource.org/pub/reporter/F2/314/314.F2d.654.20242.html . Later on, when Pérez Jimenez tried to run for President, Congress amended the Constitution to forbid anyone who had been convicted for corruption charges from holding office. The fact that you are requiring evidence to prove this, and didn’t ‘t even know the fact that he was in jail to begin with, show how little you know of Venezuela’s real history which makes ironic the fact that you are calling ignorant or arrogant anyone on this blog who disagrees with you.

            • And anyone who knows Venezuelan history knows how Hugo Chávez Frías expressed on many occasions his admiration for Pérez Jiménez, whom he visited in Spain.
              Asinus asinum fricat.

            • Great argument CACR, except for the fact that this has nothing to do with what the discussion is about.

              So I guess you’re saying that Perez Jimenez was not guilty of anything other than embezzlement because that’s all he was ever tried for?

              It is incredible the levels you all will stoop to in order to maintain your bullshit arguments.

            • I always found that ironic Kepler and know one really called him on that meeting. He admired a right-wing dictator, what did he admire, the alleged ideology?no, is the concentration of powers, the intolerance of dissent and the prosecution of opponents. At the end is the same militares keep ruling in Latin America. Not those sissy civilians with their silly separation of powers and democracy arguments.

            • Not,
              My argument is that you are always requiring evidence of facts that people who actually know about Venezuelan History would be ashamed to ask. The Judiciary in Venezuela, in particular Criminal Courts, has always been incredibly corrupt and penetrated by drug trafficking, well before Chávez, that has not changed, it has gotten worst. If you think that Aponte Aponte is the only Judge or Prosecutor in Venezuela linked to drug dealing or taking bribes then you really have NO CLUE about how Venezuelan Criminal Courts work, human rights report on the matter, etc.

        • This is the typical answer of those ones with a corazoncito rojo-rojito, because he lied about Makled, he also lied about anything what he said involving Chavez…the point is that this individual was in the Supreme Court because Chavez give the thumps up…so the link is there…does not matter who lies …every one of them Aponte^2, and every member of the Government that allowed him to be in the supreme Court have the moral statue of a scorpion…and my apologies to the scorpions!

    • True, but being a witness also counts for evidence. He also was a supreme court judge of the Chavismo regime. Wouldn’t that give him some credibility? I mean. You Chavistas believed all he said until very recently.

      • It would give him some credibility had he come out saying all this stuff BEFORE he had an obvious motive to retaliate against the government. Let’s not suck our thumbs here. It was only once the government accused him of crimes that he began to make all kinds of wild accusations.

        Could they be true? They could be. But before we go all crazy repeating these things as if they were true, as virtually all opposition hacks are now doing, we need a little things sometimes known as EVIDENCE.

        • Try reading the article first, clueless, before you criticize.

          Oh wait, I’m asking you to do something logical. Sorry.

        • Get a clue,
          You are absolutely right. Evidence is needed. This is just the beginning of this whole scandal. Do you think someone the TSJ is independent enough to dig evidence up that incriminates high ranking judges? Who will carry out such an investigation?
          He indeed was connected to Makled, aslo many other. Why was him taking off his post?

          There is the problem of lack of evidence for the case. There is also the problem of attaining it in the current state of affairs. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Uh, as far as I can tell they HAVE dug up evidence against a high ranking judge. That’s exactly how this all started. There IS clear evidence that Aponte has ties to Makled (something Toro conveniently leaves out of his hack job article). What there ISN’T evidence for are all the accusations that Aponte is making.

            So there doesn’t seem to be a problem with attaining evidence in general, just evidence to support your side’s bullshit version.

            • The same exact evidences that link Aponte to Makled, link Chavez to Makled. Aponte signature doesn’t appear on Makled’s ID. He did know him, ohh yeah, so did Chavez.
              But don’t loose you patience. The evidence will pop soon.

              And remember that he was not going to be prosecuted, he was merely remove from his position. So it is not the same to say that they went after the judge to put him in jail

            • “OUR SIDE”S” version? I believe there is a consensus that this guy is a crook- “your side” (apologists for human rights abuses) was out of the gates fast on that one.

              Now tell me, how many supreme court justices can carry on this way for any period of time undiscovered, unaided and without a large web of high level accomplices (including the fiscalia). How likely is that? Zero likely. And do you think this guy was appointed to the supreme court on the basis of merit? DId you actually listen to the interview of him? Does he sound like a “jurist”?

              I think you have got a clue on this one, get a clue. You are just a shameless propagandist.

            • Apparently Rodrigo isn’t good with that thing called EVIDENCE either:
              http://tareck.psuv.org.ve/2012/04/20/notas/nexos-eladio-aponte-aponte-nacrotraficante-walid-makled/

              He’s also not good at basic reasoning, since the Venezuelan government obviously couldn’t prosecute Aponte once he fled from the country and into the arms of the DEA who aided him.

              Hmm, I wonder why Aponte ran to the US if the Venezuelan government wasn’t going to prosecute him? Very strange…

            • Holy crap! You mean Chavez’s brother once stood next to this guy on television before any of this evidence came out??

              Nail in the coffin Kepler! You’ve proved it beyond a shred of a doubt!

            • “http://tareck.psuv.org.ve/2012/04/20/notas/nexos-eladio-aponte-aponte-nacrotraficante-walid-makled/#Signatures on the Credencial de la Fiscalia Militar”
              Wow, getting paid by cheque by this Aponte guy must be a bitch

          • Great. So the government’s statements that they did not do any of the things Aponte said they did is evidence that they are innocent.

            Case closed!

            • But of course the individuals Aponte mentioned as conspiring to obstruct justice haven’t denied it at all. Instead, they just indulge in name-calling.

            • Where are those statements from the government?. So, far, what they’ve said is “Aponte es un delincuente y un traidor”. They have not addressed his accusations.

        • And who is to produce that evidence? Who among Venezuela’s authorities has launched an investigation?. Since I can’t reasonably expect such investigation will happen, I resort to my own logic (and I can’t be blamed for “repeating these things as if they were true, as virtually all opposition hacks are now doing”). So, I believe Aponte is linked to Makled and many other similar cases. I also believe he wouldn’t go to DEA unless he had some hard evidence of his claims. Otherwise, going to DEA would be like commiting suicide. What is he gonna say to DEA? “Oh, here I am. I’m a narco judge but don’t put me in jail…I have some very interesting anecdotes to share about the Chavez regime”. He comes accross like a moron but I wouldn’t believe he’s that stupid. He knows he’d be toast if he doesn’t share a stack of serious documents with the DEA guys.

          • Right, because the US government doesn’t have a history of sheltering Venezuelans who flee from justice. Nope, none at all.

            • Interesting and very telling. When you make such a statement about “the US government” you seem to believe the U.S. government is a monolitic power capable of ruling over all of its branches, that holds secert meetings led by the vice president every Friday morning to decide who gets convicted and who doesn’t. Hmmmm. So, you picture Biden going….”hey Mr. Director of the DEA…that guy Aponte is too valuable for our “proceso”…make sure he’s not thrown in jail no matter how much of a narco-judge he is”. That simplistic and revealing portrayal of the U.S. government reminds me of the proverbial “mano peluda” of an old guy in a big hat with red bars and wihite stars that the “ultrosos” used to draw on the walls at the UCV many years ago. So, when you view the world through Chavista lenses you think every government has its Friday morning meetings with judges ike Aponte. No wonder Chavistas are so paranoic.That’s quite Interesting…

            • Dude, that was so stupid I’m not sure how to respond.

              If you deny that the US government has a history of protecting criminals from Latin America when is serves their agenda then you are denying something that is just plain fact for most reasonable people. How else could you explain cases like Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Merzerhane, Zuloaga, Eligio Cedeño, just to name a few.

              But, hey, wouldn’t be the first time right? Look at Toro, he’s going on his 11th year of denying the 2002 coup. Now THAT takes an incredible capacity for dishonest bullshit!!

          • It’s kind of funny to use his link with Makled as evidence that he’s lying, though. From the interview:

            - Verioska: Usted tiene vinculación con Walid Makled? Lo conoce?

            - Magistrado: Si lo conozco. Nunca lo he negado. Yo soy valenciano. Ese señor vivía en Valencia.

            - Verioska: De dónde lo conoce?

            - Magistrado: De Valencia. Ese señor en el paro petrolero en el 2002 si mal no recuerdo, era un gran señor en Carabobo. Le ponían hasta alfombra esos entes gubernamentales. Fue uno que supuestamente ayudó a la recuperación tanto de las refinerías como de la alimentación del pueblo. Entonces ese señor era un gran señor, en ese tiempo.

        • No amount of evidence will be enough to convince you that chavez on down where involved in manipulating the judicial system. If you had the decency to accept this, we could have a conversation.

          Chavez will soon croak and the revolution will be buried with him.

          • No amount of evidence? You haven’t given a single shred…nothing!

            Let’s see the evidence and then we can have a conversation. Until then, its pure speculation and manipulation.

            • “If you deny that the US government has a history of protecting criminals from Latin America when is serves their agenda then you are denying something that is just plain fact for most reasonable people”.

              If you deny that the Chavez regime has a long history of manipulating the justice system when it serves its agenda, then you are denying something that is plain fact for most reasonable people.

            • Funny, because if its plain fact all of you are certainly having a lot of trouble coming up with any shred of evidence… Maybe you should have said it is plain fact for those who really want to believe it is true.

        • Wrong. Aponte began talking to US law enforcement about a year ago during trip to DR as result of fallout from cocaine turf wars. Aponte much involved but on loosing side alongside Makled (the dumbass). Too much wealth given to Makled clan….it was matter of time someone smarter/powerful would muscle-in. Btw, what are the charges against Aponte?

    • We should be clear: Aponte’s testimony constitutes evidence. It’s not hear-say, the guy was there. So it’s something of a non-sequitur to claim there’s no “evidence”.

      What we’re lacking is corroboration: independent confirmation that what Aponte is saying is true. And yes, this is lamentable. But then, I’ve been extremely explicit in lamenting the lack of corroboration, to the point of annoying most of my readers.

      So saying I’m repeating the charges unquestioningly is a bit rich…though, of course, it’s a tiny pecadillo compared to the tsunami of propagandist horseshit in GaC’s other posts.

      • Yes, we should be clear Toro, and not manipulate. But that’s not your strong suit.

        Aponte’s testimony doesn’t constitute evidence any more than the government’s denial of that same testimony constitutes evidence. Without anything to corroborate it, it is useless.

        In fact, the only real evidence we do have so far corroborates what the GOVERNMENT is saying: that Aponte is linked to Makled.

        And it shows that Aponte lied about that connection. In other words, so far the score is 1-0 in favor of the government.

        But that’s not what your hack-job article would lead us to believe is it Toro? No, you didn’t even mention Makled or the connection in your article!

        If what you call being “extremely explicit” is attaching one sentence at the end of an article that treats Aponte’s claims as virtual truth, then you’re so out of touch with reality that you’re incapable of honesty. But we’ve known that for awhile now haven’t we?

        • Get a clue, grow up. The government can’t be one to talk about lacking evidence, as it denied insulting Capriles after half the world clearly saw that one post calling him an extremist gay zionist pig and it was removed from a government news site… Oh and is there any evidence that what judge Afiuni did was illegal? Flatter me.

        • If I was part of the Government and will clearly present any evidence that I have that what this Aponte^2 said was not true…so far the government is not doing that …it is only trying to associated Aponte^2 with Makled and the opposition….How the Government do not have these evidence?…so the truth is that everybody (Aponte/Makle/Government) is only saying haft of the truth…the one that benefits them!

          The big evidence here is everybody was part of the Government or had strong ties with it!

      • And of course if there is corroboration, it is to be found, first of all, among the files of the Vice Presidency and Chief Prosecutor’s offices in Venezuela. Of course GaC won’t complain when they don’t look for it, or, when they burn the files on October 8th.

        • There you go again, making assertions that simply can’t be backed up by a single thing. I see you’ve got a knack for that.

          • Get a clue, I want to hear you say that in venezuela, a person accused by the government of a criminal offence has access to due process under the law, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, a presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial before an independent decision-maker, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. And tell me that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Interamerican Court of Human Rights, the ILO, and I could go on and on, are just a bunch of imperialist lackeys.

            You are arguing about the speck in the other guy’s eye when there is a log in yours.

            • Wait a minute, I have to prove all of that because you can’t provide a shred of evidence to back up your nonsense? What universe do you live in?

    • Evidence? Any oral statement is evidence. Now, it is “on the record” in English, for all to see and weigh as they deem fit. Of course, it would be nice to have the memoranda which issued from the Friday morning meetings; if Aponte doesn’t have them, the Office of the Vice Presidency surely does. Let them make them public.

    • He was one of chavismo’s top guys, and not any small fry. Went from Military Prosecutor General to TSJ Magistrate. Now they agree with the DEA that he is associated with drug trafficking, and was associated for some time since. My humble guess is that this casts serious shadows of doubt on the intelligence and/or honesty of the whole movement called chavismo, or at least of it’s top officials. Either they are complete morons or complete crooks. Pick.

      The man was involved in many a judicial prosecution and now, under no duress whatsoever and in control of his faculties, is admitting to having been ordered to rig them, and to having rigged them to frame innocents. That’s more than enough to demand a review, if not a retrial or dismiss of every case he was involved with.

      • Key word: WAS one of chavismo’s top guys. Then they found evidence he was involved in narcotrafficking. So if you think the Chavez government condones this kind of behavior from a judge, you’ll have to explain why all of a sudden they decided to get rid of him. Oh, and please include evidence to back it up, otherwise its worthless nonsense.

        • Was until very very recently… They must have known quite a lot about his doings, as well as about Makled’s.

          And stop trolling. As said before, what he has said, being involved and all that, and usually corroborated by Makled, the other crook, constitute eyewitness accounts.

        • Right, so they knew about it all along is what you’re saying, except for the fact that you have ZERO evidence to back that up. So you’d have to explain why they decided to investigate him all of a sudden if they always knew.

          Also, I didn’t know that it was considered “trolling” to ask people to back up their shit with evidence. Eyewitness accounts don’t count for much when they are directly contradicted by other eyewitness accounts. That’s why you need a little thing called corroborating evidence. Amazing that I even have to explain this.

            • Poor Kepler, his limited mental capacity makes it impossible for him to participate in the debate here. But at least he tries really hard!

          • Perry Mason (aka GaC) is giving me a headache on so many levels. Please recuse yourself counsellor.

            • Indeed, attempting to maintain a bullshit story with zero evidence has been known to cause headaches from time to time.

            • Can you guys hear a buzz? It sounds something like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz bullshit zzzzzzzzz stupid zzzzzzz evidence zzzzzzz. It might just be me

          • I don’t have to back anything up with evidence. I am no prosecuting attorney and I am taking Aponte’s declarations as they come, without adjudging them necessarily true. However, I would very much like to see specialists, both journalists and (impossible in Venezuela) independent counsels get down to it. To investigate Aponte’s allegations and his involvement in them. Wouldn’t you?

            • How do you know they aren’t already doing so? After all, obviously there’s already been an investigation into his involvement with Makled. That’s how this all got started in the first place.

            • So they are investigating the messenger to discredit him, rather than seeking to investigate the substance of his allegations regarding people who are actually in Venezuela and subject to its jurisdiction. Forgive me if I don’t stand and applaud.

            • You’ve got it backwards my friend. They found his links to Makled BEFORE he became “the messenger”. He hadn’t said a word about anything until they removed him from his position. So, the reality is that what HE is saying is an attempt to discredit the government, not the other way around.

            • Get a Clue,

              A crook that doesn’t confess until discovered. Go figure. And your take is that his confession has nothing to do with truth, but with discrediting those that discovered him?!

              That would be the funniest thing if you hadn’t already admitted, earlier, that you believe opposition leaders are out free because chavez interfered with their legal process, which is exactly what Aponte claims, so we know that you believe at least that part of Aponte. We’re now just seeing how far you’ll go to defend the government of the murderous, excon, coupster chavez.

              Remember, you’re hurting chavismo more than you’ll helping them, and they are reading all of this.

            • Maybe on Makled-Aponte, I do have it backwards. But the Venezuelan government is STILL not investigating his allegations, even though many of the alleged crooks are in public positions of considerable importance (as was Aponte). So what’s backwards here is Venezuelan “justice.”

            • Once again Torres shows how utterly confused he is about very basic stuff.

              Apparently Torres doesn’t know that in most countries the Justice Dept works closely with the executive to decide on what charges should be brought against who. This doesn’t mean the president interferes with the decision of the case, which is in the hands of the courts, but presidents often decide when to bring charges against particular individuals.

              This isn’t what Aponte accuses Chavez of. He accuses Chavez of interfering in the OUTCOME of cases, not in whether or not charges should be brought against certain individuals.

              Not only is Torres confused about how the Justice system works, he’s not even clear about what Aponte’s accusations are!!! Seriously Torres, give it a rest man. You’ve more than made a complete idiot out of yourself here.

            • Get a Clue, your statement was: “The fact that Leopoldo isn’t sitting in jail right now is because Chavez decided to be reconciliatory after the coup instead of going after everyone involved.”

              This quite simply translates to chavez letting people go free who you claim are murderers.

              If you also claim that such an outcome, without pardons or immunities, are standard outcomes in the relationship between executive top brass and justice, you’re the one who’s showing what you showed earlier, not idiocy but dishonesty.

              As to Aponte, don’t get distracted: he’s confessing after he was caught, and he’s confessing to chavez meddling with justice, which is what you stated above, corroborating Aponte’s confession.

              By the way, if your claim and Aponte’s are true, then the murderer that you support is letting *opposing* murderers go free. Are you calling chavez an idiot, too?

            • Once again Torres gets pretty much everything completely backwards.

              First, Leopoldo didn’t murder anyone. Why would he be tried for murder? He was involved in planning, carrying out, and supporting a coup. But he didn’t kill anyone.

              Those responsible for killing people that day are now sitting in jail. And, according to your own logic, we know they murdered people because they were tried and convicted by a court!!!

              As for the rest of your nonsense, its just that: nonsense. Go listen to what Aponte’s accusations are. They are about deciding the OUTCOME of cases, not about deciding who to bring charges against.

              Executives are involved in deciding to bring charges against all the freaking time. In the Obama administration alone there have been several controversies about who the administration has decided to bring charges against. Obama has decided to not charge Bush with war crimes, etc. He’s also decided to pursue charges against people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

              Only a moron would argue that Obama is “meddling” in the justice system by deciding not to pursue charges. Executives and Justice Depts do this all the time. Whether or not you agree with it, or think it is obstructing justice, is another question altogether.

              Now run along Torres. You’ve been thoroughly destroyed here.

            • Get a Clue, Are you telling me that planning and carrying out and supporting an illegal action that leads to 60 deaths by murder by others is not grounds for a murder charge?

              Are you also telling me that preventing charges from being made against someone whom you believe is guilty, especially if you get first hand review of all evidence against the person, is not affecting the OUTCOME?

              Kepler, the more time he spends with me here, the less time he spends with someone else elsewhere. Also, there are chavistas that are required to read all of this; I know some of what I write here sinks in. Get a Clue gives us the opportunity to address them from their starting point.

            • Torres,

              If anyone else is reading this they are rolling on the ground in laughter at your sheer stupidity. As always, its been a pleasure to demonstrate the gaping holes and utter dishonesty in your arguments.

              Using your logic, Obama is about a million times more guilty than Chavez in “meddling” with justice, since he decided not to try George Bush for war crimes, and the murder of tens of thousands of people.

              Once again, Torres demonstrates an incredible ability for dishonesty. No wonder these guys have been able to deny the 2002 coup for more than a decade! They are freaking pros at this whole dishonest manipulation stuff!

          • Get a Clue: “They are freaking pros at this whole dishonest manipulation stuff!” Says the guy who still avoids showing any condemnation for chavez’s murderous coup, still supports the murderous coupster, yet still avoids admitting his support for the excon. Dude, stop trying to push your imperialistic ways on Venezuela, especially in such a dishonest fashion.

            By the way, I did not say interfere with the justice dept., I said with justice, only justice.

            • Again, Torres is incapable of understanding very basic concepts. I’ll try to make it as simple as possible so that your three brain cells can attempt to grasp it.

              It isn’t dishonest to support a coup.

              It IS dishonest to claim a coup didn’t happen, or that certain people weren’t involved in it, when the evidence shows that they clearly were.

              The only conceivable way that I could be as ridiculous and dishonest as you are would be to deny that Chavez was involved in a coup in 1992 despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. No Chavez supporter does this, because even the most ridiculous Chavez supporter couldn’t hold a flame to Torres and his friends here.

              • It isn’t dishonest to support a coup, your dishonesty resides in that you won’t admit supporting the convicted, murderous coupster, while lashing at those who won’t admit that they support alleged murderous wannabe coupsters.

                It’s me learning dishonesty from you, beginning with the third person reference as if you weren’t replying to me. lol Looking at it from the bright side, you certainly have a lot of room for growth in the maturity department.

            • So basically Torres’ argument goes like this:

              I say: You are dishonest because you have continued to deny for the last decade the obvious involvement of opposition leaders in the 2002 coup.

              Torres’ response: But you won’t admit you support Chavez!!

              This is what’s known as Ignoratio elenchi.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi.

              I’m pretty sure the Ignoratio part is talking about you Torres.

              • Get a Clue,

                I was clear as to your general dishonesty: You lashing out on others for what you yourself are doing even worse.

                The irony, and in line with your M.O., is that you are lashing out on me for Ignoratio elenchi in the very comment being used in that very way.

                But going back to the origins, no one here is denying Carmona’s involvement in his coup, like you don’t deny chavez’s in his.

                Where you show dishonesty is that all here condemn Carmona, but you won’t condemn chavez.

                Where you show dishonesty is that you wish us to admit that people we support are INdirectly linked to Carmona’s coup, while you won’t even admit support for those DIRECTLY linked to chavez’s coup.

                Where you show dishonesty is implying that our support for alleged coupsters is worse than your support for known coupsters.

            • Hilarious. You obviously didn’t understand the concept of Ignoratio Elenchi because you responded with the exact same thing again.

              You see Torres, (it is amazing that I actually have to explain this) who I am, or what I do is irrelevant to the truthfulness of my argument.

              I could be the most despicable, awful, dishonest person on the face of the planet. But that wouldn’t prove that what I’m saying is false.

              Seriously, most kids learn this by about age 6. I see you’re still struggling to understand it. Trying to point the finger at who I am, who I support, or who I condemn is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the veracity of my argument.

              All it shows is that you can’t prove my argument false, so instead you attempt to divert the attention back to me. Most of us learned that this is a logical fallacy before we finished elementary school.

            • ‘Tis you who doesn’t seem to understand the very concept you presented, nor the irony I pointed out in your presenting it. You see, that I am childish, or that I understand the concept or not, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of what I stated. You keep claiming that there is denial, even after I explicitly indicated that what there is is flat out adoption of the legal premise that they are all to be treated as innocent until evidence is presented beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The onus is on you to present such evidence for your argument against us here to hold water.

              Aside from that, I pointed out that the context of your requests for acertain dmissions is that anyone who supports people that are associated to anyone that had indirect links to a coup attempt is in some way wrong, which makes it very relevant if you are the person on the high horse guilty of a worse support, a direct support for the very leader of a murderous coup who was proven guilty in a court of law.

              So, admit your support for the murderous, excon coupster, chavez, and you’ll be on the road to honesty, a necessary step to get our respect.

            • “You see, that I am childish, or that I understand the concept or not, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of what I stated.”

              One small problem: I’m not arguing about the truthfulness of what you stated. I’m arguing about the RELEVANCE of what you stated, which is what the whole concept of Ignoratio elenchi is about. Again, you can’t seem to grasp that concept.

              “You keep claiming that there is denial, even after I explicitly indicated that what there is is flat out adoption of the legal premise that they are all to be treated as innocent until evidence is presented beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.”

              This is irrelevant. I am not arguing about how anyone should be treated, but rather about whether or not they were actually INVOLVED. Obviously these people are not going to be tried for their involvement. But just because they aren’t going to be tried doesn’t mean they weren’t involved. We already had that discussion up above, and you made a complete fool out of yourself. Remember?

              “I pointed out that the context of your requests for acertain dmissions is that anyone who supports people that are associated to anyone that had indirect links to a coup attempt is in some way wrong, which makes it very relevant if you are the person on the high horse guilty of a worse support”

              Great, except I am not arguing that it is wrong to support people involved in a coup. I’ve said this explicitly several times, yet you continue to dishonestly distort my argument.

              “The onus is on you to present such evidence for your argument against us here to hold water.”

              Right, because the fact that your top opposition candidates were in Miraflores with Carmona during the coup, and went on television with the coup leaders to discuss how they had planned the coup isn’t enough evidence.

              That would be like saying that there is no evidence that Chavez was behind the coup in 1992 even though he was one of the commanders of the assault in Caracas, and later went on television and admitted his involvement.

              You’d have to be completely mental to try to deny Chavez’s involvement in 1992. And, yes, you ARE completely mental for denying the involvement of your beloved opposition candidates in 2002.

              But, hey, thanks for demonstrating my point that you opposition hacks are just incapable of basic honesty. You’ve given more evidence of that then I could have ever dreamed of.

          • Get a Clue, thanks. You’ve just argued against yourself and lost! Hilarious!

            You stated: “You see Torres, who I am, or what I do is irrelevant to the truthfulness of my argument.”

            I paraphrased: “You see, that I am childish, or that I understand the concept or not, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of what I stated.”

            And you countered: “I’m not arguing about the truthfulness of what you stated. I’m arguing about the RELEVANCE of what you stated” LOL LOL

            The double laugh is because the argument not only counters yourself, it is itself irrelevant because you are just avoiding replying to what is relevant.

            Anyway, forgetting your meta arguments which you’re not only terrible at, but you’re using to distract, as per your meta argument…

            You’re arguing “about whether or not they were actually INVOLVED.” I replied directly, at least three times. You’re not reading. Here it is again: My stance, and that of

            other opposition members, is that they are NOT involved, and will continue to hold that stance so long as insufficient evidence is presented to reasonably conclude the contrary. I didn’t mean to confuse you when I explained that the basis of that stance has to do with TREATING people as innocent until proven guilty, even when we suspect that they may not be innocent. Sorry about that. Don’t get distracted; short answer is “NO, NOT involved”. Got it?

            I also didn’t mean to confuse you with the irony that an implicit point of yours is that it’s wrong to support people BELIEVED INVOLVED in a coup while you yourself support one that is not only KNOWN involved, but actually LED a coup. I’m not distracted by this, nor am I confusing it with, and especially not “dishonestly distorting” your argument; I’m merely pointing out the irony in yours. But don’t get distracted, I said: “No, not involved.”

            Regarding the evidence. you seem to think there is sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that they were INVOLVED, but the only evidence you present is their presence with Carmona during the coup, a presence to which many had been invited without being aware what it was for, and a television interview less convincing than the Aponte Aponte’s interview we present for something else, but you won’t buy that one, so even by your measure, we don’t have to buy yours. So, again, the onus for reasonably convincing evidence is on you, and until then, no, not involved.

            Not to confuse you, which seems easy, but I think your point about “You’d have to be completely mental to try to deny Chavez’s involvement in 1992″ is noteworthy. When you mention chavez’s coup, it would only be fair to mention Carmona’s coup, but you take the analogy to all who were present. You repeatedly, and I believe dishonestly, mix apples with pears. If you want to make us to make an analogous admission to yours about chavez being involved in a coup, here it is: I, and most in the opposition, admit Carmona was involved in a coup. The others, no, not involved.

            Finally, addressing your claim of our being dishonest hacks, let’s see how you twist and turn things to avoid answering my question about your support for the murderous, coupster, chavez, given I’ve already answered, many times, your question: no, not involved.

            Do you acknowledge your support for chavez, or are you, besides dishonest, a Judas?

            • Are you sure Carmona was involved? I heard he was just “invited” to Miraflores and didn’t really know it was a coup. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

              Its been fun Torres. Next time your goal should be to NOT make a complete fool out of yourself!

            • I also heard that Capriles and Leopoldo didn’t really know it was a coup when they went out to arrest Chavez’s ministers. They were just “invited” to go along, they didn’t know it was a coup!!!

              • I heard you won’t admit your support for the murderous coupster, chavez, while admonishing those for not admitting support for those the murderous coupster decided to allow to go free with no charges pressed. That’s funnier.

  4. A supreme court judge (Aponte2) accuses himself and his subordinate judges of incarcerating people (named by him) on trumped up charges. That kind of “word” evidence has to have a different weight as evidence in a courtroom, because he has insight into his own motivations that other people could not have and because he his harming himself in the accusation. So, yes, he needs to provide extra evidence to accuse OTHERS but, as regards his own person, that is a little different, don’t you think?
    Moreover, there is some evidence of government complicity in the decision to allow Aponte’s judicial decisions and those of his subordinate judges to stand without question, without the slightest attempt at investigation or re-evaluation, even after Aponte himself declares those decisions invalid.

    • Actually, while it would be great if Aponte was able to bring other evidence out of Venezuela, people can, and are, daily convicted if crimes based on oral evidence alone. The reliability of that evidence is up to the trier of fact, but nothing prevents a jury from believing a fully-detailed statement under oath as to what has occurred.

      • Right. But, again, I sort of despair, because on the strength of that interview, “fully-detailed statements” aren’t exactly this guy’s strong suit. The interview was so damn vague.

        D’you think a jury would convict on stuff like:

        - Magistrado: Cuando se iba a imputar a alguna persona, cuando se le iba a privar de libertad, cuando se iban a hacer los allanamientos, para que yo organizara esa situación, y buscara al juez idóneo, para que se realizara tal acto.
        - Verioska: Es decir, manipular un caso?
        - Magistrado: Si más de uno.
        - Verioska: Qué caso recuerda que fue manipulado?
        - Magistrado: Fueron bastantes. El único que me acuerdo fue un caso en Maracaibo de un diputado que le dicen Mazuco.
        - Verioska: Como fue ese caso?
        - Magistrado: Bueno el caso fue más o menos un caso que buscaron un preso, lo encapucharon, y lo pusieron como testigo para que dijera que este señor había sido el que dio la orden para que mataran al otro.
        - Verioska: y que le habría solicitado la presidenta del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia?
        - Magistrado: Bueno eso precisamente. Avalar esa situación. Y al hombre se le pago dándole la libertad.

        • Convict? Not solely on that.

          Investigate? Damn right! The manis saying, pretty clear that someone was framed for murder.

          Subsitute Aponte squared for say, Samuel Alito.

          Ask your question again.

          Answer?

        • i know you didn’t like the non-professional level of the interview. But really, I don’t expect ANY press interview, of anyone, to be sufficiently detailed to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The interview here is narrative, and in and of itself, explosive. It certainly would be enough, speaking purely of legal standards, for the issuance of a number of search warrants to ascertain what the documentary record might show. In Canada, this standard is referred to as “reasonable and probable grounds to believe”; Aponte’s statement, overall, certainly meets that standard.

        • I think you’re splitting hairs. First, this interview has nothing to do with investigative journalism. The guy felt on Miss Velasco’s lap and she did what she could. The goal of the interview was not to spill all the beans. It was more a political poking of the wasp nest than actual journalism.
          Had Miss Velasco any leverage on Aponte Aponte to get full disclosure? Most likely not. Was he willing to give details or evidence against his enemies in ex-change for nothing? Obviously not. He knows he is screwed, so he’s gonna play his cards close to his chest til he can get something out of it. I’m quite sure he got something out of this interview (Mr. Cedeño’s support perhaps?).
          I don’t know if you had ever interviewed someone with such a high profile and so shady as Aponte Aponte, but it is not a piece of cake. You should not underestimate Miss Velasco’s effort. I would recommend you a book, “Entrevistas Malandras” by Nelson Hippolyte Ortega. That should give you some perspective on the subject.

  5. Chris, the EVIDENCE will soon all be in U.S. possession. How USGOV proceeds is anyone’s guess do to the political sensitivity. Indictments may or may not be forthcoming. They may remain sealed. There is precedent in Cuba, Panama and Haiti all different outcomes. However, narcotics is a regime Achilles heel.

  6. Even Chris Carlson should agree that a tainted judge’s cases should be reviewed, no? At a minimum, no? And given that he claims X number of officials attended the weekly meetings, why haven’t all the parties denied their attendance? And shouldn’t their be an investigation into the vetting process that allowed Aponte Aponte to be appointed in the first place? …or an investigation into how he acted with impunity for so long? …and why he wasn’t forbidded to leave the country? …why there hadn’t yet been one incitement? …is he the absolutely only judge in the system that dispensed special credentials? …is there a review under way examining the credentialing process?

  7. The whole debate (and the troll-feeding fest) over whether Chávez interferes or not in the justice system is fun and all, but ultimately baroque. I mean, it couldn’t really be any more explicit:

      • I’m sure Justice Alito is readying his bags to flee the U.S. and go cooperate with SEBIN: after all, congress will unseat him after a one day hearing for sure if he votes to strike down the ACA. And all those lower court judges summarily dismissed or occasionally jailed for failing to do Obama’s bidding? Quaking in their boots, I tell ya…

        Round and round it goes…we’re going to end up with the fattest troll ever!

        • Yes, and if you could provide even one ounce of evidence that Chavez unseated Aponte Aponte or Afiuni because they did not obey his orders then you’d have an argument. But you can’t do that can you Toro? So you’ll just continue with your nonsense speculation.

          The truth of the matter is that both of them engaged in illegal activity, and were then charged with those crimes. Amazingly, the same thing happens to judges that engage in illegal activity in the US!

          Oh my god, judges who commit illegal acts can be unseated??? Who’s ever hear of such a horrible thing?

        • One wonders what would happen to Alito if it were shown he had ties to narcotrafficking? What would happen to Alito if it were shown that he allowed a suspect in a crime to escape out the back door and flee justice?

          I wonder?? And I bet Toro in gang would be sooooo concerned about the US judicial system if any action was taken against Alito, right???

          Face it Toro. You’ve got nothing. You amassed a huge pile of horseshit with no factual basis whatsoever. But your own dishonesty will never allow you to admit it, even to yourself. Are you still telling yourself in the mirror everyday that the 2002 coup wasn’t pre-planned?

          • Why you mad, bro? If Toro’s just spewing his usual brand of horseshit then nothing to worry about, right?

            • Who said I’m mad? I thoroughly enjoy pointing out Toro’s dishonest nonsense to his face just to watch him struggle and squirm.

  8. So the Fiscal says today there is not sufficient basis to open an investigation. Which would have been of course, an investigation into her own office. In other words, illustrating exactly the point AA was making.

    This has got to be near the end.

  9. Chris, after Ejercito setup Makled with load, Aponte went to DomRep where FBI and DEA have office. That was a year so you can imagine Aponte has been recording everything since. Aponte was very specific in interview who he has goods on. USGOV only cares about evidence that links cupula to shipments headed to U.S. A specific case comes to mind…the DC9-15 with 5 tons. That alone should snare a few

  10. Who was involved in the dc9-15: Luis correa, head of ONA, concunado de Jesse chacon and whom I consider the most dangerous man in Venezuela today. Jesse, DIosdado and his brother who ran Maiquetia at the time, Makled (his bird), GN and Ejercito to name a few. Deben de estar cagados porq the gringos don’t forget…there will be payback for the dc9.

  11. Aponte is why the gringos passed on Makled extradition. The Americans where talking to Aponte and Makled (in Colombian custody) and statements where coroborated.

    Chris (GaC): the Americans have been playing catchup for the past year. Hard to say what they will do but they have very powerful options should chavistas kick the table.

  12. Esto como que pica y se extiende…

Comments are closed.