The State Attorney’s Office has requested the archive of the case opened before the Supreme Court against the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, and the provincial chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, for an alleged crime of revealing secrets committed against Alberto González Amador, boyfriend of the Madrid president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, Europa Press reports.
In their appeal, the State’s legal services indicate that the evidence presented against their client, Chief Prosecutor Pilar Rodríguez, and the Attorney General do not respect “the reality of the facts documented in this case.” In this sense, the Lawyers point out that there is an “obvious and manifest error” in the statement that both García Ortiz and Rodríguez are suspected of leaking the February 2 email between González Amador’s defense and the prosecutor who was investigating him for crimes. prosecutors.
The State Attorney’s Office argues that this suspicion is based on the fact that they had access to that email “in their case, in addition, with the aim of collaborating in the preparation and dissemination of the note of March 14.” The press release denied the hoax launched by the Community of Madrid that the Prosecutor’s Office had offered an agreement to Díaz Ayuso’s partner and had then withdrawn it “by orders from above.” In reality it had been the other way around and the chain of emails exchanged between the Public Ministry and the defense demonstrate this.
González Amador filed a complaint against prosecutors for the press release. The Supreme Court rejected the accusation of García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez for the content of that note, but stated that there were indications of a crime in the leak of an email, first published by Cadena Ser, the night before. In this sense, the Law Office says that this email is not the first to be published.
“The first publications in the press that contain literal information about the content of the aforementioned email of February 2, and that presuppose your knowledge and access to its content, occurred before it was sent to my client, by Julián Salto – the prosecutor of the case–, the aforementioned emails”, specific.
After reviewing the specific hours of March 13 in which several media published texts of that email, the State Attorney’s Office explains that these news should have been analyzed by the Supreme Court after receiving the reasoned exposition, “and instead, they have been ignored in their conclusion of the culpabilistic budget that determines the opening of the procedure” against Pilar Rodríguez.
In this sense, it stands out that the first media outlets that leaked the content of the emails maintained by González Amador’s defense lawyer and prosecutor Salto, “as can be seen from the literal wording of the articles, obtained the information from close sources.” to the defense.”
“It is noted that this indication – against García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez – is of minimal incriminating power, if it turns out that in reality, the reference emails were in the possession of the affected person, his defense, the Prosecutor’s Office and multiple media outlets. communication that they said they were informed by the plaintiff’s defense,” he adds.
And he regrets that “the political confrontations that justified this matter coming to the attention of the media and the press” have been ignored “when assessing the eventual beneficiaries of this distorted dissemination, especially when it is also proven that part of these previous disseminations came from the defense environment.
For this reason, he demands that the Chamber’s decision to investigate both be reviewed, and adds that if Salto declared that on March 13 at 10:00 p.m. he sent all the emails exchanged with González Amador’s defense to the chief prosecutor of Madrid and to the attorney general after they were requested is because “they did not have them at their disposal when a media outlet had already reported.”
“The content of Salto’s statement highlights that neither of them had the emails at their disposal nor did they know the terms of the agreement, which clearly prevented them from having leaked any type of information before.” that they received the email,” he points out.
For the legal services of the State, it is “clear”, in short, that “the leak of the email dated February 2, 2024 to the media took place before” their client received the email from Salto and, of course, before she sent it to the state attorney general. “For this reason, the facts examined by the Chamber do not constitute a crime, and the present special case must be filed,” it indicates.
Add Comment