MadridThe government of Pedro Sánchez will remember the date of October 16 for a good season. It must have been International Coincidence Day. The first act of coincidences took shape in the fact that the Supreme Court considered it necessary to investigate the Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz for an alleged crime of violation of secrets. The reason, the information about the talks to close a pact between the Prosecutor’s Office and the defense of Alberto González Amador, partner of the Madrid president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, accused of tax crimes that he was willing to accept, in exchange for ‘a penalty reduction. Hours later, the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office reported in favor of the imputation of former minister José Luis Ábalos for the plot of the masks of which the administration was a victim during the pandemic. The first, on the right cheek; the second, on the left cheek. And the government, trying to appear undeterred.
The truth is that it could be expected, and in fact it was expected. On September 5, the opening day of the judicial year, in the room of the lost steps of the Supreme there was already talk with great certainty of the proximity of the imputation of the head of the Prosecutor’s Office. It must be said that strictly speaking, what the criminal court did this Wednesday is not impute him, but take over the investigations, to see if he ends up accusing him or not. But for media purposes it is enough, because it is a procedure against the State Attorney General, an unprecedented situation since the restoration of democracy. There have been several attorney generals who have resigned from the position, or who have left it in fear, fleeing political pressure. But it is the first case of the Attorney General to be ruled by the Supreme Court.
The value of transparency
Having made the necessary inquiries, I left the Supreme Court that day convinced that Álvaro García Ortiz would be investigated for having tried to clarify the terms on which he had negotiated with Ayuso’s partner. Already on that date, prosecutors from the high court present at the event expressed to me the criterion that the Prosecutor’s Office should not have provided data on that negotiation, because it was obliged to take it with full confidence. But there were also those who acknowledged to me that the silence of the prosecutors would have allowed the possible intoxication of public opinion, in particular about who and how he had offered to accept the guilt of the tax frauds committed in exchange for not setting foot in prison. It is legitimate to wonder, therefore, what is at stake here, apart from the head of the Attorney General, and whether this episode also has something to do with the right to information and the value of transparency.
The other chapter, the Ábalos case, is embarrassing from the start. But the data provided by the Civil Guard are a set of indications that for now can hardly prove anything other than absolute immorality. If the Supreme Court also assumes this other matter, as the Prosecutor’s Office wants, Manuel Marchena’s successor at the head of the criminal court will have work to order the agenda of this court. And especially the instructor of the case will also have it to specify the responsibilities of each member of the plot. Now, all together it has an explosive political charge of many megatons. Especially if we also count the continuation of the investigation into the relations of the wife of the Spanish Prime Minister, Begoña Gómez, with businessmen interested in receiving public subsidies. For the supposed allies of the government, the approval of the budgets is in these circumstances almost an act of charity.
Source: www.ara.cat
