-
The most coherent objection to the trial of Jeanine Áñez is that differences in the proper parliamentary procedure shouldn't become criminal cases. This is reasonable in general but not in the context of Bolivia's 2019 crisis. @CarwilBJ/1539251306891776001Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -6 🙁
-
The dispute over succession might have been settled judicially via an advisory opinion from the Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal, provided that both sides could fully brief their case and appear before the court...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
… and reasonably believe that the executive would yield to the judiciary in matters of law.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
Instead, in November 2019, you had an outgoing party in substantial part fleeing the country and seeking refuge in embassies, while the incoming Minister of Government threatened to "hunt" them and began mass arrests of protesters and foreigners.On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁
-
In short, because the Áñez presidency was so coup-like in its initial actions, issues that could have been dealt with in a procedural trial in 2019 could only be handled in a criminal trial in 2022.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
I'm generally very cynical about the US judicial system, but there should have been an Áñez v. Rivero case in 2019 along the lines of Bush v. Gore. And succession should have paused til it happened.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
But I can also see how lack of judicial independence and low confidence in the judiciary would have undermined trust in any outcome. Still preferable to 34 deaths those two weeks.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁