Scandals, Lies and videotapes: A follow-up on Félix Bautista and the Haitian corruption case

Things happen so quickly during these elections it is impossible to keep track. In this blog I will list all the recent scandals that have emerged, one crazier than the other (and all lies, it seems like), before I analyse the government's desperate answer to the Nuria revealed scandal involving Félix Bautista, a PLD senator, organisational secretary of the PLD, and as close to a president as the president's own son. It seems like I will never get time to write on the institutions and do more "political sciency" analyses of the parties, party system, electoral system, etc. We'll hopefully come back to that in May.

First an update on the Félix Bautista scandals, which are not few, before I talk about the others (which also are quite many). Nuria's revelation of Félix Bautista's corruption schemes, his fortune, and the bribing of two presidential candidates in Haiti has made the governing party rather desperate. The evidence Nuria has presented is very convincing and as mentioned earlier: in most other countries Félix Bautista would be under investigation, potentially in custody, and his party would have tried as hard as it could to distance itself from him. In the DR none of this is occurring. Since the first (of the last of many) revelations regarding Félix Bautista, Nuria has provided more evidence that nails Félix Bautista to the coffin. First of all, as everyone here knows, many journalists receive money from the government so that they will talk nicely about the government. Nuria is the first to present evidence of this by putting forward cheques from Bautista to "journalist" José Laluz who used to work in the famous morning debate show "El gobierno de la mañana". She also demonstrated that Bautista hires the ASISA survey company, which not surprisingly is one of the companies that give the highest popular advantage to the PLD and Danilo Medina. Nuria also presented evidence of payments to another PLD senator, an ex-bureaucrat of Panamá (a country in which one of Bautista's company is working to get construction contracts). Finally she presented two interesting news: the government is seeking high and low for her sources (instead of investigating Bautista), and several of the people Nuria has demonstrated is paying or receiving money in an irregular way, have sought official letters from their banks that deny Nuria's accusations. None have gotten this so far. Today, April 18, acento.com.do also produced the Cámara de Cuentas (Chamber of Account, the state's external auditing agency) report for OISOE (Oficina de Ingenieros Supervisores de Obras del Estado), which Félix Bautista headed between 2006 and 2010. It had been rumoured for some time that the audit existed, but that it demonstrated so many irregularities that it had been shelved. Licelot Marte de Barrios, the distinguished and respected PRSC politicians who deads CdC said that no audit had been shelved, and dared the media to prove this. Acento did so within a couple of days, and published a summary of the shelved report (which means that indeed Marte de Barrios did conceal this report to protect Félix Bautista...which of course constitutes another scandals and discredits even more the already heavily discredited CdC9. To make a long story short, there has been no control of the budget and thousands of million Dominican Peso are unaccounted for (either going out or in and to different sources). From the government's side, no news: investigations have not come up with anything (My guess is: there are no investigations).

The revelations Nuria has presented with have been great food for the PRD in their attack on this government's corruption. Therefore, the story has been used for what it is worth politically, and as always rumours are created. This time the PRD started rumours that Nuria had fled the country to avoid government persecution. Several I know updated their Facebook pages with support-statements for Nuria, etc. (it'll be interesting to see how long the PRD will be fond of Nuria if the PRD wins the elections in May). Nuria, however, was travelling for private reasons and finally had to send out twitter messages denying the rumours that she was hiding from the PLD-government. The case has also become a minor international embarrasment not only for the country, but indeed for the press. The journalist covering the case for Le Monde has compared the Haitian and Dominican press coverage of the case and found that the Haitian press seems much more interested in the case, and that the Dominican mainstream media hushes the case down. The latter is also my impression, and as mentioned earlier, mainstream media only overs the Félixgate when there are official denials from the government, and then rarely on the front page. This has been noted in Hoy, which is becoming slightly more critical, but has not created any investigative journalism in that newspaper either.

What is new this time is that the scandal finally is well substantiated. This never happens in the DR. Scandals used to be invented, like the Margaritagate, or when in 2004 the PRD government put out false tapes that Leonel Fernández was trying to destabilise the Peso, or whenever Vincho Castillo (FNP) opens his mouth, and so on and so forth. Maybe the government and Danilo's electoral campaign is just taken aback by Nuria's audacity to actually publish evidence of corruption. Maybe it is because they really do not know what to do with Bautista (how does one actually perform an investigation into government corruption? The PLD doesn't seem to know or care)? Or, maybe it is that the Danilo campaign has figures showing them to lose the elections and therefore they are getting desperate. What is clear is that Nuria's revelations have unleashed a series of desperate measures from the PLD, one more incredible than the other. In sum the government/PLD has accused parts of the PRD of plotting to coup Michel Martelly in Haiti, use that to stop the elections in the DR, and to want to kill the president of their own party, Miguel Vargas Maldonado (PRD). Before those cases, some other incredible stuff.

It started quite innocently with the Senate sending an official apology to Barack Obama for Hipólito Mejía's (PRD) statements in New York that Barack Obama was from Africa (and born over there) (31 of 32 Senators signed, only Amable Aristy Castro of the PRSC and ally of Hipólito Mejía did not sign). See the tape here. As always with Mejía, this was only a bad joke, which the PLD has taken out of context, but a good example of how one can overcome obstacles to succeed (Obama was the example). It is obviously not true that Obama was born over there (por allá) since Obama is born in Hawaii, but that he comes from Africa is partially true since his father was from Kenya. I would not be the least surprised that Mejía would make a point of this, he has been known to comment on skin colour earlier, and after all he is a Dominican, and if there is one place where genetics is important, it is here. Nevertheless, if Mejía said this it is only a minor error (although typical, and one that points towards a potential anti-african sentiment in Mejía), said in a jokingly tone to make a point that your background (African) does not matter. The irony, however, is that the way the apology is formulated it looks like the Senate finds it to be more of an insult to argue that one is born and/or have ancestors in Africa than the fact that Mejía potentially put in a little lie about the US president. I do actually believe that the Senate considers the "accusation" that one is born and have ancestors in Africa to be an insult. No matter the truth of the matter, this case is just as embarrassing for the Senate as it is for Mejía, and I am sure whoever received this in the White House is having a big laugh. Considering that this was an official letter sent to the President of the USA from the Dominican Senate, it is also an embarrassment for the Dominican Republic. The other irony is that  the Senate is dominated by the PLD (31 of 32 senators) and the PLD has since 1994 been allied to a racist and xenophobic party, the FNP, the PLD itself has been no stranger to racist attacks on its opponents when this has been necessary, and has implemented decrees, laws and a new constitution that is highly discriminatory against (black) haitians, but now find it prudent to defend the US president from attacks that potentially has discriminatory origins.

I mentioned the other day the surveys. The one ordered by Diario Libre (which I used in my blog on Margaritagate), has been surrounded by controversy. I heard early on that rumours within the PLD was that the numbers had been altered to favour the PRD before publication. I can understand the PLD wanting to put out that rumour given the fact that this survey is one of the more serious ones. The reason why it was altered, however, is a really interesting and bizarre story. The accusation is that Luis Alvarez Renta who is in jail in connection with the BANINTER bankruptcy in 2003, threatened to kidnap and/or kill the owner of Diario Libre, Arturo Pellerano, who is also in jail but due the bankruptcy of BanCredito the same year, if he did not change the results of the Greenberg survey published in Diario Libre in favour of Hipólito Mejía. The accusations were made by journalists favourable to the PLD, and former members of the famous "El Gobierno de la Mañana", who we know now, after the exposé of Félix Bautista, receive money from Bautista or the PLD. By the way: Funny how Pellerano could feel threatened by a threat to kidnap him considering he is in jail. Alvarez Renta took the accusations seriously and has asked the prosecutor general to investigate.

Last week the really big bomb (of desperation of the PLD) was dropped. The foreign minister of the DR, the Minister of Justice in Haiti, the prosecutor general of the DR, together with the ambassadors of Haiti and the Dominican Republic accused Pepe Goico and a Haitian Businessman Pierre Kansky of plotting to coup President Michel Martelly. A press conference was called to announce this bomb, a press conference in which no questions could be asked, only accusations be thrown out so that media coverage was secure and people could forget about Félix Bautista stealing tax payers money in order to get rich. The evidence was two taped phone conversations between Pepe Goico and Pierre Kansky. The quality was horrible and only demonstrates that Pepe Goico wanted to make it known in Haiti that Nuria Piera had proven that Michel Martelly was taking bribes from Félix Bautista. For the PLD/Government this was evidence enough that Pepe Goico/PRD was planning to destabilise Haiti. Apparently Nuria was being used by the PRD who had falsified the evidence Nuria presented in order to destabilise the president of the neighbouring country (see Nuria's reaction here). Why would the PRD do this, you might ask? Well, presidential candidate Danilo Medina explained it all a couple of days later: According to Danilo Medina, the PRD plans to generate disorder in Haiti via Pepe Goico so that the elections in the Dominican Republic would have to be cancelled. Medina argues that PRD and Hipólito is planning this because they are losing the election and Hipólito is a cry-baby (llorón). Before I go on here, it should be mentioned that it is not accidental that the PLD is attacking the PRD via Pepe Goico, who is Hipólito Mejía's and the PRD's own Félix Bautista. He is a weak spot for Mejía, and Mejía should have gotten rid of him years ago...I will write more on Pepe Goico later, suffice to say that when in government he is equally bad as Félix Bautista.

There are so many bad sides to this case for the DR, its government and the ruling party, the PLD:
The prosecutor general has taken the case seriously and sent it for investigation with the prosecutor of the Distrito Nacional, i.e. Santo Domingo, who is in a bind. Either she argues the case has merits and creates  international news: Man close to presidential candidate Mejía is plotting to take down Martelly (based on no evidence whatsoever), or she goes against her own government and presidential candidate Medina, and says that the whole press conference was full of lies (which is the truth). My guess is, she won't do much at all. The accusations, however, are serious, and they are an embarrasment to the DR, its government and governing party, the PLD. 1) First of all, it is obvious that this is not a complot. Nothing in the taped conversation suggests a complot, absolutely nothing. Second, how could a Dominican destabilise the Haitian government when he has no army in Haiti and the country is filled with 14,000 UN troops? Third, what are the motives? Etc. 2) The prosecutor general is taking this case seriously, while he would not touch the Félix Bautista case which is well evidenced, and has resulted in an international scandal already. This is also a huge embarrasment for the DR. Danilo Medina challenged the PRD and others to sue Bautista in a civil lawsuit, while he asked the prosecutor and the state to investigate Pepe Goico. It is actually Pepe Goico that should sue the state in this case. 3) The case demonstrates that the government has never stopped its bad practice of listening in on phone calls they have no business or right to listen to (see also below). Leonel government is just as bad as Mejía's in that regard. 4) The PLD/Government is implying that Nuria Piera's story of Félix Bautista is part of the plan to destabilise Martelly. This is a government attempt to drag into the mud the best, and most respected journalist in the country. No wonder the International Press institute expressed concerns about press freedom in the DR during these campaigns. The government is already trying to find Nuria's sources and has earlier searched other journalists' homes after exposés of scandals. 5) It is serious that the government of Haiti is picking sides in this elections. By joining forces with the DR government in this matter, they knowingly interfere with the Dominican elections. Normally, Dominican authorities cry foul whenever anyone makes an opinion on national politics. Here official Haiti is. Clearly Martelly and Fernández and the PLD have interests in common here: discredit Nuria (save Martelly, the PLD and Bautista), get Danilo elected (after all Martelly was given the highest dominican order, Duarte, Sánchez y Mella, when he visited three weeks ago).

The case is also serious because it demonstrates that the media here: 1) receives money from the government in order to work as "periodistas de bocina" (journalist loudspeakers) for the government; 2) the attention given to this case, or the lack thereof, demonstrates that the mainstream media fears the government or does not want to touch it, and that in Haiti the press is much more critical to its government; 3) the lack of questions from the press as to how the government got a hold of this tape, whether the tapping of the phone conversation was legal, questioning how the governments could argue for a complot when the tape reveals no evidence of such, and the massive attention this is given in the major newspapers, is an embarrasment to the media corporations in this country (exception is acento.com.do), 4) on a more personal note, the case really drags Ruben Silié, the former director of FLACSO in the DR, and respected social scientist (apparently Silié did not like being at the press conference, but as Dominican ambassador to Haiti, he was present. Silié also felt the need to express his concerns for Dominican-Haitian relations after the accusations in a letter written to El Día). All in all, this whole case is an embarrasment to the government, the PLD, and Danilo Medina because it is so clearly based on a lie, and because it demonstrates the government's total lack of interest in investigating what is clearly illegal and corrupt activities.

One would think that a trumped-up complot against the Haitian government was the worst the PLD/Government could come up with, but it was not...the next case is not as embarrassing at the international level, but just as unfounded and weird.

The latest, and maybe the craziest, or at least as crazy as the complot/coup-plans in Haiti, is that Guido Gómez Mazara, a PRD politician, together with other colleagues in the PRD are supposed to plan to kill the president of the PRD Miguel Vargas Maldonado. This was announced on April 17 in a press conferene by 5 PRD (!) representatives in the Chamber of Deputies (not surprisingly no questions were allowed). To this story one should add that Miguel Vargas and Hipólito Mejía are no longer friends after Mejía won the PRD primaries, and Miguel Vargas cried foul and fraud. Vargas still in control of the PRD as president of the party, has been reluctant to support Hipólito's campaign, but has come around somewhat. It is nevertheless a divided party that goes to the polls, and most observers blame this on Miguel Vargas. Apparently a conversation has been taped in which Gómez Mazara states that what Miguel Vargas needs is a bullett ("darle un tiro es lo que hay que hacer"). If the tape is the real deal, then this is just typical Dominican Tigueraje talking. I would not be suprised in any conversation with top politicians here that they state that their opponent is the worst ever, and in context say that the guy needs a bullett. But, what the press is not asking yet, is how PRD representatives have access to taped conversations between to other PRD-politicians. This case is of course yet another attempt to discredit the opposition, and the accusations are lies. The "clever" move this time is that it is the PRD that is making the accusations, not the PLD. The idea behind this is of course to increase the legitimacy of the accusations. Well, my guess is that these 5 PRD-representatives have been paid (maybe by Félix Bautista?) and are quite ready to leave the party (at least if Hipólito Mejía does not win the elections). And a simple google search on one of the main accusers, Victor Gómez Casanova, makes the accusation lose any legitimacy. The case is now being followed up by the prosecutor general who takes the accusations seriously, but who has his hands full with a host of phony cases recently. It will be interesting to see if the prosecutor general will ask where the tape comes from given the fact that Dominican law only accepts taping of private conversations after a court ruling giving permission to do so. 

So within a week we now "know" that the PRD is using Nuria Piera in order to remove Haitian President Martelly in order to stop the elections in the DR because they know they are losing to Danilo Medina, and because they are dissatisfied with the party president, Miguel Vargas Maldonado, the PRD is planning to kill him. Well, the DR is a good example of what happens when there are no ideologies or policies to debate, then scandals and lies take over.

Margaritagate and The Danish Debacle

A while back journalist and lawyer (everyone's a lawyer in this country...I think this is because it is the easiest way to be entitled Doctor, since having a master's degree in law gives you the title Dr. in this country), Marcos Martínez of Santiago (the second city, the capital of the Cibao valley and heart, lungs and economic motor of the country), in his morning show on Channel 55 accused the First Lady, and current vice-presidential candidate for the PLD, Margarita Cedeño and senator Félix Bautista, the allegedly and proven corrupt, senator of the PLD for San Juan, of having bank accounts in Den Danske Bank (The Danish Bank, major bank in Denmark) with holdings of 43.8 million €. Martínez argued he had evidence to prove this, but did not produce in the show at that time. Later, however, he did produce the so-called evidence, and it became relatively obvious for any serious person that the accusations were a lie.

Anyway I became rather curious about this. Knowing that all politicians tend to get rich when in power in the DR, I would not be surpised that Fernández/Cedeño family has values of that kind, and we do know Félix Bautista has that kind of money (see one of my previous blogs). Furthermore, it was a Danish connection, and coming from Norway, this was almost like home for me. My gut reaction, however, was that the accusations could not be true. If Denmark is like Norway, you probably couldn't open a private account there without a national identity number, and, more importantly, if you are from the Caribbean and have 40 million € to hide, would you pick Denmark over let's say the Cayman Islands?

The whole story tells us something about the media in the DR, both the fringe, unserious media, represented by Marcos Martínez, and the mainstream media which is paralysed by its self-censorship (a fact that is much more evident in the Félix Bautista case than in this case, and in a host of other cases of scandals involving important people). Furthermore it gives insight into differences in political culture between Scandinavia and the DR, and teaches us the value of having a professional, autonomous and politically independent bureaucracy (even though we might dislike bureaucracy in Scandinavia as well, some time in the DR or other places like the DR, teaches you the value of rules and regulations that are upheld by the state).

Let me quickly first take up the story again. First, in February 2012 Martínez accuses the first lady and current vice-presidential candidate for owning a bank account with more than 40 million € in Den Danske Bank. Martínez had no evidence, but said he had evidence securely stored and would present them at a later date (first sign that this is a lie). Then, what struck me was that no serious newspaper or media picked up on this (that means they thought this could be true). Canal 55 and Martínez's show is a far way off mainstream media and any impact on the daily political agenda. Nevertheless, such an accusation, true or false, would have been great news-stuff in most other countries. In what seems to be a pattern, however, the main news-media only pick up critical stories of people close to power (the presidency, senators, ministers) when the accused denies the story. By denying the scandal, the accused has confirmed the accusation exists and it is ok for regular media to cover the story (the coverage, however, is generally that the negation of the accusation gets great coverage, while the accusation and potential evidence, do not). So when Margarita denied the accusations on twitter, if I remember correctly, and then stated that she would sue him for diffamation and what have you, the case exploded in the mainstream media (as a contrast the Félixgate, which actually seems true and involved high-end corruption in DR and Haiti, still receives little news coverage), and became dubbed the Margaritagate.

Sadly, and typically, the media and politicians here were more interested in the accusations and refutations among the politicians than finding out whether the whole thing was true. The Prosecutor General for instance should have been very interested in this. If it were true, then he could probably accuse the First Lady of tax evasion, corruption and what have you (in the USA this Prosecutor/Attorney General would have made a career on this, not so in the DR). If it were false, then he could run a case against the journalist for lies, defamation, etc. In the end the prosecutor general was not interested in doing anything (maybe out of fear that the accusations were true?). Therefore, I took matters into my own hands and contacted and tipped off two respectable Danish newspapers, one of which was interested and took the case. This was Berlingske Tidende which wrote this article on the matter. Apparently at the time via Facebook, Dominicans had sent messages to Den Danske Bank asking for information about the First lady's supposed account, but gotten the answer that any account information was classified and could not be released. The Berlingske Tidende article basically said that Den Danske Bank could not release any information about their clients, and that the Financial Supervisory Authority of Denmark could not give any statement about this either.

On behalf of the First Lady, the President of the Dominican Superintendence of the Banks, Ng Cortiñas, however, had gotten in contact with his Danish colleague, who informally had said to his Dominican colleague that no such bank account existed. This information, which the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority had gotten from Den Danske Bank, had to be kept a secret since the Danish Bank and the Financial Supervisory Authority officially could not give out such information. As a favour to his Dominican peer, the Danish helped the First lady out. Here, however, is where the culture clash and difference between a professional and politicised bureaucracy create problems in Denmark and DR.
While the Danish boss of the FSA is a professional (economist, I presume), the Dominican President of the Superintendencia de Bancos is a politician. Now that Ng Cortiñas (the president of the Superintendencia de Bancos) had gotten confirmed that the First Lady did not have a bank account in Den Danske Bank, he immediately held a press conference stating that Mikkel Holle from FSA in Denmark had confirmed this. The problem occurred when Berlingske Tidende asked Mikkel Holle about this and he of course had to deny to ever have given out any information to his Dominican colleague (which if it were true, would have been illegal). The Danish FSA of course assumed that the information would be handled with discretion and not used politically. The danes probably expected that Ng Cortiñas would tell this to the prosecutor general and maybe the president.

The case had indeed become political at that time. Marcos Martínez who originally made the accusation, was a former member of the PRD and its 1980s splinter party the PRI, and the PLD (the First Lady's party) used this information to discredit Martínez. He did not need much discrediting, really, because after some time he presented the following picture from a supposed internet bank account as evidence for the First Lady's and Félix Bautista's supposed accounts (on YouTube you can find several analyses of why these are false).

PRD followers, on the other hand, took the pictures to be real evidence and were even more strongly convinced that Margarita indeed had this account together with her brother Alberto Cedeño and the "crook" Félix Bautista. Furthermore, as news of the Berlingske Tidende news story came to the DR (it helped that BT translated the story into English), the PRD had reason to question Ng Cortiñas's story where he stated that his Danish colleagues had cleaned the First Lady's name. Now, with evidence from Denmark the PRD could say that what Ng Cortiñas told during the press conference was a lie. So the culture clash between the Dominican and Danish Bank superintendents also came back to haunt the Dominican government. Mikkel Holle, who Ng Cortiñas said he had spoken to, said he was surprised to be quoted in Dominican newspapers. In this case the Dominican Bank supervisor had fooled his Danish counterpart in order to score political points, but in the end he ended up raising more doubts about the First Lady. According to what I know from my sources, the conversation, or exchange of information between Denmark and the DR did actually take place, and it was confirmed that the First Lady does not have a bank account in Den Danske Bank (and of course, the evidence presented is false).

I was quoted in Berlingske Tidende that the opposition would believe this story, and that the PLD supporters would not believe this story, no matter the evidence. Even though in the previous blog I stated that during these electoral times one cannot trust surveys, I will here present an interesting graph demonstrating to which degree people now believe the First Lady actually has a bank account in Denmark. This survey was done by Greenberg on behalf of the newspaper Diario Libre (if anything, this survey was probably tilted in favour of the PRD), and more or less confirm my comment to BT.

Source: Diario Libre, Tuesday April 3. 
The columns show whether people think the accusations were true (Verdadero) false (Falso) or whether they do not know, or do not want to answer (No sabe/se rehúsa), and separate the answer according to which party the respondents will vote for on May 20. Only 8% of the PLD supporters believe the accusations to be true, while 55% of the PRD supporters have the same faith (33% in total population). Interestingly a full 21% of the PRD supporters believe them to be false, and also a 24% do not answer or do not know. The survey at least demonstrates that if accusations against your own party comes from the opposition, you will not trust them, and if the accusations come from your own against the other party, you are likely to trust them, but not blindly. There is therefore clearly a divide between the parties here, and it might lead us to speculate whether the revelations of so-called scandals may have any effect on the vote on May 20. Clearly in this case the evidence were really poor, but a better test might be the case of Félix Bautista and his corruption schemes which are well-documented (but silenced in the media). Will people from the PLD believe these accusations? If so, will that have any effect on their inclination to switch and vote for the PRD? The answer to the latter also depends on the likeability of the PRD candidate (which is not very high). Given the tightness of the DR election, even false scandals like this may have the sufficient effect to sway the election one way or the other, but I think the number of scandals that now pop up just is overkill and make the scandals lose any effect they might have...

Another problem with such false scandals and accusations is that they for one take away attention from the real scandals (the government is right now smoke-screening the Félix Bautista scandal inventing that a close associate and proven corrupted dirt-bag, of Hipólito Mejía may be complotting to remove President Martelly in Haiti), and false scandals make the real scandals less reliable.

Therefore it is important to know how you recognize a real scandal from a false one here in the DR, here are some ground rules:

1) False announcements of scandals are never accompanied with evidence right away. More often than not, the announcer would say that evidence is hidden to protect the announcer, and threaten to reveal the evidence any moment. Real scandals are presented with evidence right away, and almost always unequivocal evidence.

2) False announcements of scandals often come from political parties or people alligned with political parties, and regards the opposing party. Real scandals are almost always presented by Nuria Piera (and occassionally local journalists, Alicia Ortega or Acento.com.do)

3) False announcements of scandals generally get more attention in the media than real scandals. If they are against the government there is no risk in publishing them since they are false. If they are against the opposition the more attention the scandal is given the more damage it may make. Real scandals are never given much attention in mainstream media such as El Caribe, Hoy, Listín Diario until the denial is out and then only the denials are given attention.

4) False announcements of scandals are more often than not met with reactions that the scandalised victim will sue the announcer for defamation. There is no risk for the scandalised victim to go to court. If the accusations were true, evidence might get out, so a day in court is to be avoided at all costs. Real scandals are met with silence and denial, no one is sued.

The Martínez case is for now, getting to an end. Martínez has been summoned to court and has met the prosecutor in Santiago for interrogation on the matter. He still holds his information to be true (who wouldn't in this part of the world, admitting a lie or that you were wrong would clearly be against the "Claro!" culture nicely described by Diego Gambetta some years back), and Martínez even put out more evidence that the First Lady had made illegal payments to suppliers here in the DR as well. Martínez's morning show was also closed down last week. Explanations for the reason why, differ according to which party you belong to. The Canal 55 owners say it is because Martínez failed to show up for a couple of shows (which Martínez explains with being "held hostage" in his own home due to the police watching/surrounding his house making it impossible for him go get out). Martínez, however, argues that his show was closed down due to political pressure from the PLD. As always there are two versions here in the DR: the official version and the anti-government version. And, as always, no one is really interested in finding out which is closest to the truth.

Martínez will get his day in court since he was sued by the First Lady. He might get sentenced, probably just fined, we'll see, but since this was clearly a blunt lie, it seems obvious that he will lose any case in court. Should, however, the PRD win the presidential elections on May 20, I will not be surprised if Martínez will be back as a journalist quite soon, or get a good job in the new government. Hipólito Mejía, for instance, said when he was in New York during Easter, that he believes Martínez's accusations to be true, which is not surprising coming from that guy. Mejía has a very interesting view and vision of reality, and has, just as President Leonel Fernández, no problems working with previously convicted persons.