This is a production of Channel 11 and Channel
22. That's why today I'm taking one more step
to protect Americans from the scourge of deadly
fentanyl flooding into our country. With this
historic executive order I will sign today, we're
formally classifying fentanyl as a weapon of
mass destruction, which is what it is. No bomb
does what this is doing. 200 ,000 to 300 ,000
people die every year that we know of. So we're
formally classifying fentanyl as a weapon of
mass destruction. Our vision of how to deal with
drug use is different. Of course, we have to
deal with crimes and that's why there is a prosecutor's
office and that's why there are judges. But we
also have to deal with the causes of drug use.
If the causes are not addressed, whether it is
fentanyl or another drug, drugs will continue
to be used. Well, it was a case that was made
public with President López Obrador, very questioned.
for how the pension is obtained. But the part
of the prosecutor's office, I would leave it
to the prosecutor's office so that in any case
they or the prosecutor himself or whoever corresponded
would explain why the criminal complaint when
the citation was presented, which I think they
did. So that would be left to the prosecutor's
office. Rather, you remember what this case was
like, that it is worth remembering. But the criminal
part, I would leave it to the prosecutor's office.
Buenas noches. Bienvenidos y bienvenidos a Masiosare,
la barra de análisis de los medios públicos.
En este espacio, que es una coproducción de Canal
11 y Canal 22, vamos a realizar, como siempre,
un análisis sobre los temas de coyuntura. Yo
soy Kurt Hackbarth, escritor y periodista, y
le doy la bienvenida a mis compañeras y compañero,
quienes nos acompañan el día de hoy. Nancy Flores,
from Cuadro Niño, how are you? Good, Kurt. Good
evening. Good evening to the audience. Good evening,
comrades. Good evening. The dear Federico Anaya,
again, joining us today. How are you? I'm good.
Thank you very much, comrades. Excellent. Danny
Barragan, from San embargo, how are you? Hello,
Kurt. Very good. Thank you. Good evening to all.
Nancy, Federico. Hoy vamos a hablar de dos temas.
Primero, sobre la declaración de Fentanyl como
una arma de destrucción masiva de Donald Trump
por parte de Estados Unidos. Vamos a intentar
desmenuzar esto. Y en la segunda parte del programa,
la conversación alrededor de María Amparo. But
let's start with that declaration of fentanyl
as a weapon of mass destruction. On Monday, December
5th, President Donald Trump signed this executive
order. Attention, it is not law, it is executive
order to declare fentanyl as... Now... ¿Cuál
es el alcance de ese decreto? Un poco confuso.
El hecho concede autoridad al Pentágono para
evaluar acciones junto con la Fiscalía, los Departamentos
del Tesoro y Seguridad Interior contra los cárteles,
por ejemplo, de Sinaloa y Jalisco de Buena Nación.
También implica que el secretario de ahora guerra,
Pete Hegseth, y la fiscal general, Pam Bondi,
decidirán si las amenazas que plantea el fentanilo
justifican que se provean recursos del Departamento
de Guerra. to justice. Interestingly, that seems
to me of particular interest, the Secretary of
State, Marco Rubio of the Treasury Scott Besant,
quote, will undertake the appropriate actions
against the assets and the relevant financial
institutions. It would be interesting to see
if they will finally touch the banks of the United
States and not just attempt against those of
other countries. Por su parte, la presidenta
Claudia Sheinbaum declaró que catalogar al fentanilo
como arma letal no va a resolver problemas de
consumo, ya que deben atenderse las causas. Y
pues queda también de manifiesto que es muy curioso
el uso de arma de destrucción masiva. Los que
conocemos la historia recordamos que usaron el
mismo idéntico término para justificar la invasión
a Iraq en 2003, diciendo que había tales armas
en Iraq. Resultó que no hubo. Y todo este decreto
y su alcance, un poco confuso, tiene lugar en
el marco de la amenaza de Donald Trump contra
no solamente Venezuela, sino toda la región,
usando varios pretextos. fentanyl, oil, various
other things that we are going to address in
this program. So not only an isolated decree,
but another piece in this attempt to create a
legal machinery that justifies measures against
the countries of Latin America. And we have to
see it in this sense, as another gear in this
threat. In this Nazi context, what can we say
about the decree in particular? And the threat
in general. I agree that it is a part of a much
more ambitious gear of Donald Trump. And that
the strategy is, let's say, that it is aimed
at dividing and defeating. And why do I say that?
Because it is not just this decree for... to
name or assign this characteristic to the fentanyl
of weapons of mass destruction. At the same time,
it is also pressing Mexico with the issue of
water, it is pressing Mexico with the issue of
violence, it is pressing Venezuela with the issue
that they stole oil, land, in short, there are
many issues that are pressing, as you said Kurt,
the whole region. And it seems to me that it
has a ... in which each country has to attend
to its own domestic and also the direct threats
of Donald Trump. And then what happens with that?
Well, it starts to divide. to the countries.
So they are countries that in the end come to
this weak discussion, that is, without strength,
without strength. And why does he do it? Because
that also allows him another type of interference,
like what we saw in Chile and what we saw in
Honduras at the same time. In Chile he does very
well, he wins, Donald Trump, in fact with the
arrival of Katz. and in Honduras it did not go
so well because there was an opposition, especially
from Xiomara Castro. So what I see is just this,
a much more thought -out strategy in dividing
and defeating, and also that it uses the end
-of -year season, where most of the peoples,
more than in resistance, are in celebration,
in turning off the news. Para empezar la fiesta
en México tenemos el Guadalupe Reyes. Y eso nos
describe que estamos un poco lejos de la resistencia.
Y eso es lo que yo creo que está pasando ahora.
Y me parece que está utilizando también el tema
de la doctrina del shock, que mete en shock a
estos países. Y entonces no sabemos cómo reaccionar.
Federico, como abogado, como experto en jurisprudencia,
¿cómo interpretar un decreto así? ¿Es puro show
o algo de sustancia? Let's see, the substance
is the threat. It coincides completely with Nancy.
It is part of a larger strategy. On the other
hand, there is a strange thing. One of the correspondents
of the Mexican corporate media, who normally
reports to Televisa, wrote in El Economista an
interesting report on this Trump decision. And
he remembers and dedicates a good amount of paragraphs.
that in 2018, at the beginning of the other administration,
Trump achieved laws with democratic and republican
support against fentanyl and how to deal with
the opioid epidemic. And they are strong laws
that, however, have not had money in this Trump
administration. So there is an incongruence.
Tiene hacia adentro, que es donde están muriendo
las personas, siguiendo su propio argumento,
leyes que no ha aplicado y que ya se le olvidaron.
Parece que es otra cosa. Y hacia afuera, entonces
queda más claro que es una excusa para atacar.
Y aquí yo diría nuestro socio de conveniencia,
que así es como se presentó Estados Unidos en
su estrategia de seguridad nacional, threats,
tries to convince Latin American countries to
enlist, to be their allies. Now, the question
is, which of the boxes are we going to fall into?
And it is very interesting how the president
answered, because the regional champions, that
is, the allies of the United States, Milley,
for example, or Novoa in Ecuador. to which the
strategic plan even allows them to act outside
their borders. I mean, imagine Bukele in Salvador
putting order in Honduras. I mean, if we start
putting names on it, it's scary. And there are
extra -hemispheric power partners, I mean, the
bad classics, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, but
in the middle we have some weird ones that seem
to be Brazil and Mexico, friends, previously
established, but whose governments have different
visions about the world. And this is what we
just saw. On the one hand, they are threatening
us. This is a weapon of mass destruction and
therefore it is a pretext to attack you. And
here what we answer is that this is a public
health problem of a strategy that is within our
societies and we do not agree. Now, how far does
that go? I do not know. Daniel, in the previous
program, you mentioned that Trump threatens a
lot, but the threats that are not fulfilled end
up being hollow threats. Trump has done a lot
of this this year. Are we facing another hollow
threat, or should we worry? He's constantly flirting
with war. That's how he's been handling it in
this almost first year of government, and what
happened today is not fortuitous. Amanece la
prensa con esta noticia de que Estados Unidos
iba a atacar Venezuela abiertamente por un tema
petrolero. No lo estaba disfrazando, dijo Trump,
es por el petróleo. Y cosas que ya nos remiten
a otros episodios de Estados Unidos. Eso es Estados
Unidos. For resources, it always goes for something
specific. And in this case, as I said, the press
awakes today with that news that Trump openly
said that he was going to attack Venezuela. And
we have all that context of the entire military
apparatus that has been approaching that country,
that all the attacks on the boats that they call
narco -boats, crewed by people that they call
drug traffickers. And they are the United States,
it's Washington. It's not fortuitous. que también
se haya dado a conocer en todos los medios que
hoy a las 9 de la noche, hora de Washington,
se iba a dar un mensaje en cadena nacional. Y
no es fortuito que muchas fuentes cercanas a
la Casa Blanca, cercanas a la ultraderecha, dijeran
que lo que iba a decir Donald Trump era el anuncio
de la guerra. Estuvimos casi 24 horas con esta
idea, esperando también una respuesta de Nicolás
Maduro. Por otro lado... What we just heard from
the president is that she is barely in the analysis
of really knowing the limits. And what Federico
just commented, well, he tells us that a very
deep study is required to be able to put the
alerts where they should be and the shields where
they should be, including Mexico. Because what
is being done with Venezuela, I do not stop insisting.
It's a message for the whole region. It's not
just a problem that Maduro has to deal with because
of political issues, because of the issues of
his presidency, everything that can be debated.
It's a message that Trump sends to the whole
region. Fortunately, although he is permanently
flirting with the war. The advantage for all
of us as a region is that no president, no president
has responded to the level that he has done with
various countries. The only one who sometimes
goes a little beyond the line would be Gustavo
Petro, who becomes very passionate sometimes
in his tweets, but from there on out, no president
of Latin America, including Mexico, has responded
to Trump. with that same language of war, it
seems to me that this is how it should continue,
because we have Trump in that vaivén again of
declarations. We must mention and emphasize that
this term of weapons of mass destruction is,
in addition, cynical, the use of the term. Cynical,
cynical, cynical, cynical. A bit of history for
the young people, as an ex -president said, a
lot for the young people. In 2001, there were
the attacks on the Twin Towers, after which the
United States launched its war against Afghanistan,
against the Taliban. It lasted 20 years, this
invasion, and in the end, the United States left
and the Taliban returned. In the middle of this
attack on Afghanistan, there were no more whites
to bombard. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and then Vice President Jake Cheney decided,
well, there are no whites anymore. There is no
way to feed the industrial military complex.
We have to expand the war to Iraq. But there
was no real pretext to attack Iraq. In fact,
Saddam Hussein, the then head of Iraq, had been
an ally of the United States in the 1980s in
his war against Iran. Focus groups. Con esos
grupos de enfoque ensayaron varias diferentes
ideas y pruebas y justificaciones. La prueba
que mejor salió en las encuestas fue esa de armas
de destrucción masiva como pretexto para arrancar
una guerra. Es decir, amedrentó más, intimidó
más, creó más miedo. Y ahí los medios de comunicación...
Boom! Empezaron a entrar en acción. Vamos a ver
algunas gráficas aquí de los medios de aquel
entonces, 2003. Aquí son algunos de los medios,
los tabloids famosos del Reino Unido, que el
Reino Unido estaba a 45 minutos de un ataque,
porque ahí Cipre está cerca. 45 minutos, los
británicos, dentro del rango de los misiles de
Saddam Hussein. He's got them. Let's get them.
Los tiene. Hay que agarrarlo. Hay que atacarlo.
También del lado de Estados Unidos, toda una
serie de titulares en, por supuesto, New York
Times, argumentando de que sí, había armas de
elección masiva, sobre todo con este periodista
Judith Miller, que posteriormente perdió su empleo
por mentir. De las pocas veces en New York Times
que ha habido cierta rendición de cuentas. Qué
irónico, Nancy, qué cínico que están reciclando
un término que fue obviamente falso en su momento
20 años después. Yes, totally. And well, we have
to understand that Donald Trump, as we said,
is actually going for the resources. It is not
something new. The United States has always behaved
in this way and then it is being pressured by
all means. First it was immigration, then it
was the issue of the T -MEC, if we are an ally
or not fair in international trade, if we have
the capacity or not to receive a soccer world
cup. In short, he is using everything he can
to pressure Mexico, to pressure the region and
in general to pressure the world. So you have
to have, as the president says, a cold head when
it comes to reviewing these amazings, threats
from Donald Trump. The president did it most
recently with the issue of water and he will
continue to do so because we have a president
with a lot of temper in that sense. Estamos hablando
de la declaración de Donald Trump del fentanilo
como arma de destrucción masiva. Hay mucho más
que analizar al respecto. Entonces, después de
una muy breve pausa, vamos a regresar con ustedes
con más Mas Yosare. Ahorita regresamos. Thank
you. Gracias por continuar con nosotros en la
barra de análisis de los medios públicos. Seguimos
hablando de la declaración de Fentanyl como arma
de destrucción masiva por parte de Estados Unidos.
Yo antes de la pausa hablé un poco de la historia
muy cínica de ese término, pero tú también, Federico,
tenés esta observación muy interesante, también
lingüística. E histórica. Maciosare se llama
Maciosare por el extraño enemigo del himno nacional
mexicano. Ahora, este es el enemigo más extraño
que hemos tenido en frente hace mucho tiempo.
Estados Unidos, como dijo Nancy, siempre es peligroso.
Pero este Estados Unidos trompeano es especialmente
complicado. Y de pronto me cayó un 20, compañera.
Pensemos, si estamos al borde de un ataque en
Venezuela, el país más grande de América Latina,
que claramente ha dicho que no está de acuerdo,
igual que Brasil, esos son los dos grandes, es
México. This is a kind of threat to freeze us,
because the attacks that the weapon of mass destruction
could justify are places in Mexico, that nobody
knows where they are and that it is impossible
to know where they are. So the strange enemy
is saying, let me do what I want in Venezuela.
It may sound a little paranoid, but in these
cases, with this type of people, it is better.
a little bit of paranoia, and then say, yes,
I exaggerated, and how good that I had exaggerated.
But I think we do have the attack, the potential
for Venezuela, on the one hand, and this threat
to Mexico so that it freezes and doesn't react.
We'll have to see what they do with Brazil. Dani,
in the face of these constant clashes of war,
what role could Mexico have in the region? As
it is, never trusting that neighbor, who not
only is strange, is volatile and is in a severe
crisis. I mean, when in the last few hours they
were managing that Trump was going to announce
an attack on Venezuela. Many voices there in
the United States began to say, well, there are
reasons, and the main one is not oil, because
even the war costs a lot to the Americans, just
with the matter of Gaza and all the funding that
the United States gave to the genocide in Gaza,
many people began to say, not in my name. And
at the end of the day, the war is also paid by
the Americans. They pay it not only with money,
but with the lives of many young people who are
going to have to be sent to war, who are sent,
who have already been sent and who have had a
terrible life. But there are other reasons in
the background. I said this neighbor is strange,
is volatile, is bipolar, is angry and is also
in crisis because Trump's disapproval is already
at 56%. And it is no less that it begins to promote
the issue of Venezuela, because the issue has
all the elements that serve mediatically to awaken
emotions in people, and especially in the American
population, which does have a lot of that desire
to want... to fight with dictators, to save peoples,
and also because of Venezuelan migration, which
has grown a lot in recent years, not only to
the United States, but also to Mexico, and this
is the case in Chile. But, yes, but... No, no,
go ahead, go ahead. But something is also happening.
I mean, while the United States is resorting
to its strategies, which we already know... There
is something that seems a bit new to me, which
is how the ultra -right is acting more and more
coordinated. And I say it because of what happened
with the elected president of Chile, that the
result of the election was on Sunday and yesterday
he was already saying, if Trump wants to attack
Venezuela, Chile is with him. with the United
States. And also what Juliana Sánchez denounced
very early today, which is that the entire Nobel
Committee is lending itself to give green light
to the United States to commit crimes against
Venezuela, to start a war in Venezuela. So it's
not just the United States anymore, it's the
United States with its allies from the region
and from other places. And that does seem a bit
new to me, which is how they are starting to
act in a more coordinated way. Y afortunadamente
nos estamos dando cuenta. O sea, el mensaje que
deja Assange esta mañana me parece muy importante.
Es interesante, Dani, que menciones esto de que
Estados Unidos siempre quiere mostrar o hacer
la narrativa como si estuvieran peleando contra
las dictaduras. Y muchas voces de la derecha
y los medios de Estados Unidos y también de acá
quieren pintar esto de atacar a Venezuela como...
Algo en contra de la dictadura y en pro de la
democracia y tantas cosas. Luego Trump sale y
dice, no, es por el petróleo. No. Lo dice claramente,
¿no? La única ventaja de Trump es que dice las
cosas, ¿no? También dijo que Estados Unidos ocupó
a Siria por el petróleo. En todos estos falsos
discursos. Y liberó al presidente de Honduras,
que estaba condenado por narcotráfico. 45 años
por 400 toneladas de cocaína, ¿no? Y es interesante
también porque hay que tenerlo claro. Incluso
Trump se considera el rey solo, lo que sea en
su mente. Pero ni siquiera el presidente de Estados
Unidos puede declarar guerra él solo. Este poder
radica en el Congreso, según la Constitución
de Estados Unidos. Tiene que ver con la declaración
de guerra. The presidents do many things, but
there is also the law of the powers of war. After
the president starts something, the Congress
has to approve this matter. But... Trump is trying
to find a way to legally justify what he already
decided to do, for example, in the bombing of
the boats. He has no legal justification for
that. None. Even Senator Chris Murphy said it.
They left a meeting yesterday with Secretary
Rubio, Secretary Hexeth, and he said there is
no legal justification for what they are doing,
not even close. And there is. Personas de los
dos partidos que están diciendo eso, ¿no? Demócratas,
pero también voces valientes del partido este
republicano. Entonces, Trump, primero, hizo esa
declaración de FTO, ¿no? Que los cárteles eran
organizaciones terroristas extranjeras. Esto
era una pieza. La siguiente pieza es esto de
armas de destrucción masiva. Está tanteando,
está buscando una autorización legal que no tiene.
Y saben que no lo tiene en cuanto a Venezuela.
But he's going to do it without legal justification
and with a great, great part of the country,
the United States, against Nancy. Yes, well,
I would also like to point out that today President
Claudia Sheinbaum, in her morning conference,
made a very harsh criticism of the United Nations
organization because it is not seen in all these
conflicts. And secondly, I also find it very
important that she says, look, the peoples have
the right to choose the forms of their governments
and also this is free self -determination. So,
respect democracy and popular will is very important.
is a very strong message and it seems to me very
remarkable now to say that this is precisely
this designation of fentanyl as a weapon of mass
destruction gives it extraordinary powers to
the United States itself, that is, its extraterritorial
laws are approved and among other things they
say that President Donald Trump says that the
heads of departments and agencies will take the
appropriate measures to implement this order
and eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl
and its main chemical precursors throughout the
entire chain of production. And here I also find
it fundamental to point out the role of the media
and non -governmental organizations, as we will
see in the second block. que están financiadas
por Estados Unidos a través de agencias y acompañan
este... type of actions of military and interventionist
character. In the case of the media, it must
be remembered that the New York Times came even
to make a montage of fentanyl kitchens saying
that it can be done in any kitchen. And this
is not anything. They are accompanying a whole
narrative, a whole discourse that will allow,
at the moment, to make interventions not only
in Venezuela, but also in Mexico. Let's remember
that Mexico is a petrified country. In addition,
Nancy, to close this block, Trump said in his
post the other day that Maduro is using oil from
these stolen oil fields. That is, Venezuela stole
its own oil. We are already... To the American
investors, exactly. Or what does Trump want to
do? He wants to ignore the nationalizations of
Chávez in 2007, or even the nationalization of
Venezuela's oil in the 70s, which was with a
friendly government with the United States. It
was a friendly government with the then government
of Gerald Ford. And that means that any country
in Latin America that has nationalized any resource
stole something from the United States? Lithium,
Mexico. And that doesn't go back to the... Básicamente,
¿no? Bueno, con eso, Martín, vamos a la conversación
alrededor de María Amparo Cázar en 2024, la Fiscalía
General. of the republic opened a case of investigation
against Maria Amparo Cázar for alleged illicit
use of attributes and faculties derived from
the payment of a vitality pension granted by
Pemex after the death of her husband, this employee
of the oil company, who died in 2004, and not
any pension, a pension of about $4 ,000 a day.
que cobra desde hace 20 años. ¿Qué está diciendo
redes acerca de este caso? Interesante, Martín.
Sí, a otra escala, pero también otro tema que
está muy presente en las redes últimamente. Y,
pues, sí, nos dimos a la tarea de echar un ojo.
Recopilamos alrededor de 230 ,000 publicaciones
entre el 11 y el 17 de diciembre. Las palabras
clave son estas que han estado presentes en la
conversación. In the temporal behavior, the peak
of publications occurs on Saturday, December
13, and the intensity of all this has already
been lowered, but if something that draws attention
is that there is practically pure retweet in
the networks around this whole issue. Y alrededor
de qué hashtags llama la atención que uno de
los que están por acá arriba es todos somos María
Amparo. Pues todos ellos han de recibir una pensión
vitalicia de Pemex seguramente. Sí, justo también
decir todos. ¿Quiénes son todos, compadres? Ajá,
exacto. Entonces llama la atención, por decirlo
de alguna manera, que está ese hashtag por allá
arriba. Y también va a tener más sentido ahorita
que veamos las cuentas principales. redoubles,
la derecha diario. Ay, qué novedad. Tenemos a
la derecha diario, a Belau Sarán, a San Martín,
Fernanda Familiar también ha estado ahí muy activa
últimamente, y pues en las cuentas alrededor
de estos hashtags que han estado muy presentes.
Y ya entrando en los temas y narrativas, pues
vemos que se menciona justo que la carpeta de
investigación fue judicializada, que... The declarations
of the new Attorney General Ernestina Godoy are
also mentioned, who says that she is not acting
under consignee. We also see that just this whole
issue is around, as Cort mentioned, the vitality
pension of Pemex. And around these issues, what
are the narratives that are being positioned
or wanting to position themselves from the opposition,
mainly? Well, from the opposition, it is the
regime that seeks to reopen the passage. They
are looking for political persecution, as we
see in the following narrative. They are with
this whole issue that all this is a persecution,
it is not that they are really trying to seek
justice, and that all this is also a punishment,
not only is it a persecution, but a punishment
and a personal punishment for the uncomfortable
people of the government. That is how they are
marking it. What else do we see? It is also mentioned
from the opposition that it compares with other
cases saying that the prosecution should rather
be paying attention to other types of things
and characters that are listed there. And we
also see these solidarity samples, these calls,
this convocation that the subcontractors do,
which we commented on before entering here. And
well, how have these solidarity samples gone
to these subcontractors? They have also been
called pseudo -journalists, vendepatrias, they
have not gone very well on the networks. And
not only to them, but also to María Amparo Cázar
herself. who is also called corrupt, shameless,
and accused of giving false testimonies. Basically,
these are the narratives, and finally we see
the response and the position of the president,
who mentions that the prosecution will do what
it has to do. Well, that seems to me a classic
example of trying to defend the undefended, that
is, of the top five. And if they did not manage
to gather not even many undersigned, is there
really a lot of organic support here or are they
just the same accounts? The same accounts and
something interesting that we saw is that just
this part of the... de la carta de los abajofirmantes
fue lo más amplificado desde cuentas tipo matrícula,
¿no? Es que es este nombre y numeritos. O sea,
veíamos una buena serie de retuits de ese tipo
de cuentas, de esa cosa en particular, ¿no? Como
tratando de amplificar y posicionar esta ilusión
de apoyo. La ilusión de apoyo. Muy bonita palabra.
Sí, totalmente. Lo que me sorprende es, por un
lado, We have corrupt, shameless. And on the
other hand, stupidity. The debate, on the one
hand, is saying you don't have ethics. And on
the other hand, what they're saying, you're ignorant,
you're stupid, you don't understand. Yes, you
don't understand that there are people who deserve
those vital pensions. Abundance, but exponentially.
And words for the people. Just this illusion
of we are all. Todos somos. Todos somos. Todos
somos. That's it. Those are the signatures. Exactly.
At the end, right? Yes, literally. Totally. Well,
we'll keep an eye on it. Well, thank you very
much, Martin. Happy holidays and see you here
in 2026. See you. In three weeks. In three weeks,
yes. But it seems more dramatic to say in 2026.
In the next year. Yes. Well, Nati, let's go with
you. You have done a lot of journalism of great
importance just around that topic. You are the
most suitable person to make everyone understand
it. What is it about? Well, it's a case that
draws attention because it happens right in a
situation where María Amparo Cázar was the coordinator
of advisers of the Secretariat of Governance
when Santiago Krill was in the front and Vicente
Fox was in the presidency. The Secretariat of
Governance, to understand it in the governmental
structure, is the second most important instance
of this country. If something happens to the
president or the president, whoever enters is
the one who occupies those positions. is to say
it is a position of great influence and the issue
is that his husband enters to work in mexican
oil invited by his friend who was then the general
director of administration of mexican oil works
only four months he commits suicide because that
is what he did he takes his life within the facilities
and they make it all happen as if it were a labor
accident to assign him a vitality pension that
ends up paying 1 .8 million pesos, among other
things, in scholarships of the two children of
María Amparo Casar in the ITAM. I mean, why does
the people of Mexico have to pay the scholarships
to the children of one person? que no hizo nada
más que dañar a este país y que está en consonancia
con Estados Unidos. Lo vamos a ver en mi siguiente
intervención de cómo Estados Unidos le pagaba
a mexicanos contra la corrupción. Mucho más que
decir al respecto. Vamos a ir a una muy breve
pausa. Estamos hablando de la conversación alrededor
del asunto de la pensión de María Amparo Cáceres
y la idea de cómo dirigirnos a este tipo de eventos
fraudulentos. Ahorita vemos. Masiosare. Sigue
el contenido de Canal 11 y Canal 22. Masiosare.
Gracias por continuar con nosotros en la barra
de análisis de los medios públicos. Seguimos
hablando del asunto de María Amparo Cáceres y
yo no quiero decir ni una palabra más porque
Nancy tiene todos los datos. Lo dejamos a la
mitad de su explicación. Nos vamos a regresar
directamente contigo. Sí, vamos a recordar que
María Amparo Casar actualmente es la presidenta
de una organización que se llama Mexicanos contra
la Corrupción e Impunidad. Es una organización
financiada, entre otros, por el gobierno de Estados
Unidos. Vamos a pedirle a la producción que nos
ponga algunas de las facturas pagadas directamente
por la embajada de Estados Unidos a Mexicanos
contra la Corrupción e Impunidad. Cuando entendemos
a qué intereses responde este tipo de organizaciones,
pues nos damos cuenta. that they are far from
being a critical apparatus in the face of a power,
in the face of an unmeasured and authoritarian
power and everything they say about both President
López Obrador and President Simón. Secondly,
that this type of apparatus, which in reality
are groups of pressure towards governments, also
subject to economic power, mexicanos contra la
corrupción impunidad fue fundado por claudio
x gonzález guajardo un empresario que se hace
pasar por sociedad civil organizada que dice
que él es activista cuando en realidad es accionista
de una de las transnacionales más importantes
del papel a nivel por lo menos regional que es
kimberly clark pues nos daremos cuenta que en
realidad estos personajes no hacen una crítica
to the institutions, but rather it is a accumulation
of interests. Returning to the issue of her husband,
it is a tragic issue because this person decides
to take his life in conditions in which it is
portrayed in the file. And once their lives are
taken away, they do a whole series of tricks,
among them that very soon this vitality pension
is assigned to María Amparo Cázar. I am struck
by the file that, among other things, first it
is documented that their children are direct
beneficiaries of scholarships in one of the most
expensive institutions of private education,
such as ITAM. Why does it catch my attention?
Well, first, because this is not even a service
within public institutions. Second, it catches
my attention that this character only worked
for four months, that he was invited by Amiguismo,
which is also part of the crimes of corruption.
This is also documented in this file. In the
end, everything that comes in, everything is
part of the criteria or presumed crimes of corruption.
It doesn't just come in because his friend, who
was also his boss, the director... of administration
of Pemex or general coordinator of administration
of Pemex, but also immediately, not even a month
had passed and they had already assigned him
two credits for more than 600 ,000 pesos, one
nominal and another for a car. That is in the
file. Then, Fastrack gives you this resource,
not only of the vitality pension, but also of
the tuition fees, they also pay you for the funeral,
etc. which is a series of tricks. And to me,
just to close this idea, to say that today that
I read this tweet or this message in X of her
saying that thanks to all those who support her
because they are attacking her because she only
exercises her freedom of expression, well, go
cynicism. I mean, here we are talking about a
presumably illegal assignment of a vitality pension
that... has more than 31 million pesos that could
result in a fraud to public finances. I don't
know what is more cynical, weapons of mass destruction
of Trump or freedom of expression of Maria Amparo.
Federico, who wins? O sea, pero es para la educación
lo que les pagó Pemex a los hijos de Marín Poro
Casar es la licenciatura y también posgrados,
¿verdad? Maestría. Licenciatura y maestría. En
el ITAM, ambas cosas. Y hay una aclaración interesante.
Porque tú dices correctamente, eso no suena que
sea una prestación, ¿verdad? Bueno, ahí es donde
viene la inequidad y la falta de ética más grande
todavía. Todo lo que dijiste es claro que es
un acto de corrupción y de amiguismo. Está mal.
Pero lo peor, is that in the periodist regime
of the 20th century, things called complementary
pensions were created, which are actually strange
social security regimes, which have things that
are not on the other side, and they lack others.
For example, they do not have a hospital regime,
nor health, because they have other types of
benefits, the higher medical expenses, for example.
But that, paying the children, a college in a
private university, No nos suena que es una prestación,
¿verdad? Porque no es. Y el problema es que no
es nada más Pemex. Con estos regímenes de pensiones
especiales, tenemos a José Ángel Gurría con una
pensión igualmente muy rica y al presidente Zedillo
con una pensión del Banco de México. Yo siempre
pensé que ese presidente no había cobrado la
presidencial por buena onda. No, lo que pasa
es que ya estaba cobrando la del Banco de México.
Exacto. Entonces, ahí tenemos un problema más
grandote y por eso yo creo que When we saw the
data, people began to realize that the word thief
and corruption matter. And there, then, those
who answer them and say that they are ignorant
or that they do not understand, well, yes, we
do not understand because no one has explained
to us these regimes of privilege, which are bureaucracies.
And also Pemex told us since last year that apart
from her, there are several other dozens, of
pensions of that kind. That's the most scandalous,
for everything you said, how miraculous it was
that they saw it right away. But the problem
is bigger. And that's what hurts the upper class.
That we finally caught them. Sorry, is it not
political persecution? Are we all Casas? No,
not at all. I think that... Well, the 0 .00001
% will be like Casas, but well, I'm a millennial,
so I don't have a pension. Thanks to all the
neoliberal politics. To the 1997 petition. Exactly.
What am I going to talk about? We're all Casas
and I'm not going to have a pension. I have to
save in another way. Are you going to pay $4
,000 a day? No, I don't think that happens. Very
unlikely. But, I mean, I think... Este episodio,
ya que se da a finales de este año, termina por
encajar muy bien en un año muy malo para la oposición,
que ya suma, de hecho, una racha bastante malita
de bastantes años. Pero, o sea, lo que estamos
viendo es que se enarbola en una bandera de una
mujer hiperprivilegiada. Otra vez, su otra bandera
de hace unos días fue el gran fiasco de la Generación
Z. that they did a march, so multitudinary, on
November 15th, for November 20th there were 300
people, for December 14th there were 200 people,
the great fiasco. And right now what we have
is that they are shielded under a cause of a
woman who has a pension that she does not deserve,
I insist and I agree with Nancy, it is a very
tragic case, a very delicate case even, because
we are talking about someone who unfortunately
took his life. Pero por el tiempo que he ido
trabajando en Pemex, ni siquiera le tenían que
dar esa pensión, que es uno de los datos que
más resuenan en este caso. Entonces... Creo que
es una muy buena manera para cerrar el año en
la oposición porque vemos que siguen siendo ellos
los defensores solamente de los suyos. Siguen
siendo solamente ese grupo que vela por sus propios
intereses, que son del 0 .0001 % de la población.
Y es un mal pronóstico para lo que viene el siguiente
año. Yo hablé hace uno o dos programas de esta
tensión que siempre hay en todo movimiento. to
look at the past, which is what it means to do
justice for the cases of the past, and to look
to the future, to do the project to benefit the
people. One understands that you always have
to be on this line. But this case of Maria Amparo
Cáceres seems to me to be one of the most emblematic
cases of the need to do justice for those things
of the past. That is to say, and not to let go.
And there is an interesting detail. She continues
to present herself as the victim in the shelter
that started last year and is still alive right
now. She swore, sorry, she protested that she
said the truth by saying that she depends on
her survival of the pension, which is absolutely
false for the salary she is receiving in the
civil association in which she works. So she
lies to a district judge. The litigation has
not yet ended. Entonces... It's impunity. Yes,
I think that the most obscene thing about that,
in addition to the illicit use of attributes
and faculties, this presumed attempt to falsify
an issue as delicate as suicide to get a pension.
The term of the crime at the time it occurred
is indebted. There it is. It's good to have a
licensed lawyer on the table. That's the popular
clamor. Que bueno que el proyecto avance y todo
eso, pero vean a lo de los expresidentes, vean
a casos así, algo tiene que hacerse. Y lo más
obsceno es luego ese tentativo de retirarse como
víctima. Porque no solamente son los contribuyentes
de México que están pagando a través de esa pensión,
sino los contribuyentes de Estados Unidos a través
de USAID, que financia a mexicanos contra la
corrupción y la impunidad. En algunos años, USAID
fue el donador número uno. de mexicanos contra
la corrupción. Es decir, el donador más grande
en ciertos de estos años. Es increíble, ¿no?
O sea, roban en los dos lados de la frontera.
Exacto. Muy bien, ¿eh? Muy bien, muy buen negocio.
Se están de los dos lados, pero los contribuyentes
de México y de Estados Unidos. Ahora bien, el
asunto es qué va a pasar con este expediente.
Y tal vez, pues, ustedes sabrán mejor que yo
que iba a haber, pues, una primera audiencia.
La jueza lo pospuso y lo mandó al juez del reclusorio
norte. Pero mientras tanto, el expediente...
They returned to the FGR and they are reviewing
the case again. There you have to be careful
because there was a confusion in how the matter
was getting known. It seemed that it had just
been judicialized. And in reality, no. Since
this is a crime where there is no detainee, the
judicialization occurred in September. That is,
still with Hertz. And there, the truth is that
I do have my distrust. that they have also argued
the case. And for that reason, the Attorney General
of the Republic made the clarification a few
days ago that they are reviewing the case again.
Now, there must have been something wrong, because
months ago, the Attorney General of the Republic
of Hertz had asked for authorization from a control
judge to do some investigations that needed authorization.
Maybe something about telephones or reviewing
bank accounts. That's the kind of thing. And
he authorized them. And then the new judge, the
one who had dictated the hearing and then said
no, is because he realizes that that had happened.
And besides, the judge was angry, because he
said, you should know that this was already with
another judge. And that judge who already knew
the matter for that authorization is the one
who touches him. Now, that was known by the General
Prosecutor's Office of the Republic in September.
And in any case, they were wrong as a judge.
And in that sense, it calms me down that the
new prosecutor is saying, let's review. Because
it's important. It's an injustice that calls
to the sky. And you see it, Federico, as more
than anything, an attempt to clean up the file,
and not as a response to political pressure from
the subcontractors or whatever. With the citizen
Herzl, you can't know what he wanted. That's
the worst of it all. Because I say right now,
right now, in this moment, no, I don't think
there's any, of course, no persecution. You don't
have to answer the signatures below. It seems
ridiculous to me. There is a case and if it is
a case, Nancy just told us. And that case deserves
to be argued in a trial. And I do want to hear
the citizen to marry. Yes, of course. Explain
to me as a Mexican citizen why she thinks it
is fair to receive that. That's the right to
the truth. But the clarification was important.
The publication takes the day without the date.
They only judicialize Carpeta against María Amparo
Cázar. And the next day, the prosecutor's office
fortunately said yes. But this has happened since
September. Because what we had in the press is
that Ernestina is already going for the opposition.
Godoy came to pursue people. And no, I mean,
it's also not just a matter of declaring, but
also of slandering what Gertz Manero has done.
To say, for these things we go, for these objectives
we go very, very straight. But these with calm.
I just wanted to add two topics for what you
mentioned about how she promotes a support to
continue with this pension and also give it to
her. She was paid in 2024, Mexicans against corruption
and impunity, 5 .7 million pesos. 2024, only.
I mean, to say that she lacked this pension to
survive, well, I mean, it's really a headache
for Mexicans. It's like Fox needed her pension
to survive. What does Fox do without her pension?
Lying to a federal judge. It is a crime. And
the other thing is that Octavio Aguilar Valenzuela,
who is the one who invites his husband to work,
friend of his husband, was the brother of the
presidential spokesman at that time. I mean,
just to have the complete movie of what positions
were at stake in this particular case and why
it could also imply trafficking of influences.
Y el asunto ahí es que hay que tener mucho cuidado,
y lo hemos dicho varias veces en este programa
y en otros foros, el asunto de USAID. Como USAID
y su gemelo ahí, la Fundación Nacional para la
Democracia, NED, usa dinero que supuestamente
es para fines de desarrollo, de promoción de
democracia, justo como Estados Unidos va a promover
democracia ahorita en otros países. But they
disguise it like this. They disguise it like
this, as an attempt to take development programs
and human rights and democracy to other countries
and see who ends up spending that money. Personajes
como Mariano Castro. Ahora lo que es interesante
es que Trump eliminó USAID, pero ahora USAID
existe básicamente como la caja chica del secretario
de Estado, Marco Rubio, dentro ahí de su secretaría.
No es nada mejor, es más discrecionaria, pero
los fines son los mismos. Pero no ahora con el
disfraz de democracia, derechos humanos y todo
eso. Porque como bien dijimos en el primer bloque,
lo que tienen los trumpistas es, dicen las cosas
como son. It's oil. It's not democracy. It's
not human rights. It's not that. It's not us.
It's resources. And this is what links the first
block with the second. Well, we have two minutes
left. Conclusions. How are we going to get through
all of this? Yes, I mean, about this Mariamparo
-Casar, to say with the figure that Nancy just
gave. That for 2024, that he had had those income,
he tells us that López Obrador did not crush
the criticism as he presumed, right? Like, oh,
he's ending with the jobs, with the media. Well,
to have an income of that amount, I mean, he
kept going very well. to Mexicans against corruption
and impunity. Now imagine that the children of
López Obrador were the ones who would have received
these scholarships for the ITAM of 1 .8 million
pesos, because of course, those who harassed,
to the exhaustion, the children of López Obrador.
fueron los de Mexicanos contra la corrupción
e impunidad, y nada dicen de estas becas. Y uno
de otro seguro que también estaba contemplando
la cobertura de salud para los hijos de los funcionarios
hasta los 25 años de edad, era uno que contrató
Lorenzo Córdoba cuando estaba en el Instituto
Nacional Electoral. O sea, ya también, ya en
el último tramo de esa administración, entonces
todavía podían hacer lo suyo. Y yo cerraría con
esto. Quedaron muchas preguntas. that the ex
-president López Obrador made directly to the
United States about this financing that they
gave to Mexicans against corruption and impunity.
And they never answered. They never answered,
like with many other things, they didn't answer,
so... Pues quedan muchas dudas y la independencia
de ese grupo no es clara. Con esto, tristemente,
tenemos que ir cerrando. Nos dio muchísimo gusto
estar en sus televisores, en sus salas, en sus
cocinas a lo largo de 2025. Estaremos de regreso
en tres semanas, en 2026. Por supuesto que hay
programa mañana, hay programa viernes, pero ha
sido un gusto estar con ustedes y contar con
su apoyo. Muchas gracias y muy felices fiestas
por parte de todos los de la mesa de miércoles.
Esto fue una producción de Canal 11 y Canal 22.