A novel or a film are possible worlds, as are a documentary or a television news report: all are cultural constructions, more or less representative of reality.

A possible world is a coherent narrative structure, made up of actors and their actions. Indeed, even if a possible world aims to be realistic, it will always contain more or fewer components than reality, and furthermore, there can always be more than one plausible possible world for each event one wants to narrate.
Umberto Eco argued that possible worlds can be compared: they are equivalent when the main attributes of the protagonists are similar, and they are incompatible with each other when the essential properties assigned to the central actors are contradictory.

The guilty verdict against Vice President Cristina Kirchner in the Vialidad case, announced by the Federal Oral Court No. 2 on Tuesday, December 6, highlights two completely contradictory accounts of the trial.

Cristina Kirchner's vision of a possible world was expressed vehemently in the nearly hour-long video filmed in her Senate office and released by YouTube immediately after the brief reading of the ruling (the full reasoning will be released in 40 days).

In Cristina's worldview, the conviction was predetermined because it's part of a political persecution against Peronism. A conspiracy between the judiciary (the judicial party that succeeded the military party in its control over democratically elected governments), the Macri administration, and the media.
The ruling found Cristina Kirchner, along with nine other officials, guilty of a corrupt operation that, it estimated, defrauded the Argentine state of 84.835 billion pesos.

“We are certain that, through the processing of fifty-one public bidding processes for the construction of road works on national and provincial routes in the province of Santa Cruz, between the years 2003 and 2015, an extraordinary fraudulent maneuver took place that harmed the pecuniary interests of the national public administration in the terms and conditions established by criminal law.”

Cristina Kirchner does not refute the evidence on which the Justice system relies to classify the operation as fraudulent, but rather exempts herself from responsibility, which she claims fell to Congress for approving the budget, and to the chief of staff for awarding the bids.

The prosecutor's effort was to show a pattern of corrupt transfer of funds by the then president to businessman Lázaro Báez (whose correlate would be the return of favors in the businesses that are being investigated in the Hotesur and Los Sauces case).
Of course, Cristina Kirchner's signature does not appear anywhere.

While the situations are not entirely comparable, exposing this criminal structure is similar to prosecutor Strassera's effort to demonstrate the responsibility of the Military Juntas in the illegal repression plan against subversion during the dictatorship without documentary evidence, as we recently recalled in the film Argentina, 1985.

In Cristina Kirchner's imagined world, the important thing is to expose the judges' animosity toward her, to discredit them for their collusion with Macri's administration. This is a privileged caste that opposed her government's reforms, for example, the growth model based on public works.

This enemy of the people appears consistently in the Kirchnerist narrative, in her successive attempts at judicial reform during her second term and that of Alberto Fernández, in the denunciation of Lawfare - that is, political persecution from the justice system - suffered by the populist governments of the first wave (Correa, Evo, Lula) and by her.

Therefore, most of Cristina Kirchner's video was dedicated to analyzing the WhatsApp chats that gave rise to the complaint about the trip that four magistrates and political officials linked to Horacio Rodríguez Larreta made to Lago Escondido, paid for by a business group, possibly Clarín (in a press release from AGEA, journalists from that media outlet clarified: "those of us who work at Clarín are not the company").
This complaint had been made on national television by the President the night before the ruling in the Vialidad case was announced.

British sociologist John Thompson recounts that American citizens were more scandalized by the way President Nixon and his associates spoke in the audios that surfaced during the Watergate scandal than by the spying itself against the Democratic Party..

It's one thing to know that there are meetings between politicians, journalists, and judges, to sense the maneuvers, pressure, and exchanges involved in the political "clique," but quite another to have access to the stark terms in which politicians or judges refer to how to threaten or punish those who leaked the chats, or how to operate in the media to promote a version of the trip that leaves no room for suspicion of corporate bribes or conspiracies to influence legal cases, provided that the messages are not manipulated.

The chats feature Judge Ercolini, identified by Cristina Kirchner as the one who initiated the corruption cases against her as soon as Mauricio Macri came to power, and Marcelo D'Alessandro, the Security Minister of the city of Buenos Aires, who was in charge of the operation to fence off the Vice President's apartment just before the attack against her.

In the possible world of Cambiemos, the Kirchnerist government based its model on corruption and tried to overwhelm the independence of powers, while in the Macri government the justice system was able to act independently and that is why the cases against Cristina prospered.

In this story, Cristina is the villain and the heroes are the prosecutor and the judges in the Vialidad case. The political class clung to one or the other possible world.

According to its dynamics on Twitter, the reception of the ruling was polarized between the celebration of a historic ruling in condemning a former president still in executive functions for corruption (#CristinaCondenada) and the unconditional defense of Cristina and the hope that this will mean a boost for her presidential project, even though she assured that she will not be a candidate for anything (#Cristina2023).

Cristina's vision of a possible world doesn't demonstrate the absence of corruption in her administration, and the independence of the judiciary in the Cambiemos coalition's vision is seriously called into question by the travel scandal. Both leaders are speaking to their own supporters, while the general public remains more interested in the World Cup and more concerned about the economic situation, which shows no signs of improving.