El Chapo Trial: Cifuentes testifies Enrique Pena Nieto received 100M from Chapo

Chivis Martinez and Mica Borderland Beat

 Explosive testimony by Alex Cifuentes today

Defense attorney, with his own problems, Jeffery Lichtman, during cross examination asked Cifuentes; “You gave a story that Mr. Guzman paid a bribe to [former Mexican president] Mr. Peña Nieto of $100 million,”

Cifuentes answered; “That’s right.”

This allegation has long lingered since just prior to Pena taking office.  Supposedly it transpired in October 2012 which is after he was elected but before but before December 1st when he formally took office.

Lichtman tried to hook him into the story that Pena was paid 250M.  Cifuentes said, “No he wasn’t paid 250M but that was what Pena asked for”, I said that Chapo was requested a different amount than what Pena was paid."

The money transaction, was by a woman intermediary, nicknamed "Comadre María" in Mexico City, says Cifuentes.

Former president Felipe Calderon

In a 2016 debriefing to U.S. authorities, Cifuentes also accused former Mexican president Felipe Calderon of accepting bribes from the Beltran Leyva Organization or BLO for protection primarily against Sinaloa Cartel.

When asked about it by Lichtman, Cifuentes replied; “I would like to see the document.”

Lichtman then showed the document to Cifuentes, who said, “Right now, I do not remember that.”

He was then asked if it was true,   Cifuentes said the BLO “did send their army against Mr. Guzman.” Cifuentes also claims Chapo had a military captain and special forces on the cartel payroll who provided information used against BLO.

The court room quickly  recessed directly after this proclamation. 

It is unclear how this witness was even able to sneak this testimony in—the government already asked that this line of questioning not be allowed in, Cogan rules in their favor and drastically limited the testimony.

Once it was in, the government filed a sealed motion to attempting to limit the testimony of a witness.

It could be Alex Cifuentes, but since the judge already ruled against allowing much questioning regarding past presidents and bribes, it would appear a private side bar or conversation out of earshot of the jury would suffice.

The new filing is to obstruct testimony about bribes to presidents and others.  I am confused as this was already ruled on.  Cogan said that line of questioning would be too confusing for jurors.

Update:   

Judge rejected the prosecution’s request, stating in effect the cat was let out of the bag yesterday.

Full docket text for document 551:

MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross-Examination of Cooperating Witness Pursuant to FRE 402, 403 by USA as to Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera. 

Rules of evidence 402 and 403

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. RULE 402

FRE 403. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of:  Unfair prejudice →refers to the danger that evidence might suggest an improper basis upon which the jury could decide the case.

Prejudicial Effect... When the evidence is called by the defense the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect is weighed further in the side of admission. A judge should only exclude evidence where the prejudicial effect "substantially outweighs" the probative value.