Twenty-eight words spoken by Pedro Sánchez. 270 by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. The whole show was transferred to the Palacio de La Moncloa for the statement of the President of the Government as a witness on July 30, reduced to a briefing that lasted one minute and 48 seconds.
Nothing else was expected. No one is obliged to testify if their spouse is under investigation. Peinado wanted to put on a show. It was not enough for Sánchez to testify in writing – it is a privilege that presidents and other high-ranking officials have – and he needed it recorded on video.
In August, Peinado rejected the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that a copy of the recordings not be provided to the parties, including the popular accusation represented by Vox and several far-right organisations, because they lacked “material and procedural utility”. In addition, the request was made to ensure that this content would not end up being leaked to the media, as had happened with Begoña Gómez’s statement.
The judge of Madrid’s Court number 41 had launched an investigation of maximum public and media impact, armed with press clippings and without the support of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the UCO of the Civil Guard, who saw no crime anywhere. In the absence of evidence, you always have the prospective investigation – to see what comes out – and the show. The show must not be missed.
As expected, the audio of Sánchez’s non-declaration has finally been sent and has appeared in several media outlets. It is curious that some have headlined it with the president’s most predictable phrase. “Sanchez’s statement before Judge Peinado: ‘Begoña Gómez is my wife’”. “The audio of the statement Pedro Sánchez’s statement in the Begoña Gómez case: ‘She is my wife’.
Stop the presses. Uncork the champagne. Tell all your WhatsApp contacts. Pedro and Begoña are married and love each other.
It’s not that the headlines are poorly chosen. What happens is that there is nothing more to scratch. “Your Honor, I am exempt from the Article 416”Sánchez said. The judge had reminded him earlier that he was “exempted from making statements on anything that could be detrimental to him” (his spouse). Considering what Sánchez said in the letter with which he began his five days of political abstinence, anyone could imagine that he would not make a statement, as the law allows. It is enough that he did not tell in detail how deeply in love he is.
In rejecting the prosecution’s appeal, Peinado offered a justification that falls into the unknown dimension. It is known that quality and clarity in writing is not the strong point of many judges, but his is worthy of mention. In a sentence of 436 words, the reading of which can make the blood flow to the brain with difficulty, the magistrate explains that the parties involved will be able to interpret the conduct of the declarant, which “allows for the formation of inferences, which, where appropriate, together with other elements of an objective nature, can lead to conclusions of an objective nature, in order to assess the possible concurrence of integral aspects, of possible indications, either in an incriminating sense towards some person under investigation, or on the contrary, in an excluding criminal responsibility sense.”
Roughly translated into the language of mortals, what the judge means is that he believes that clues can be deduced about the witness’s decision not to testify and how he did so, either to incriminate him or to exonerate him. And all this without the need for a Ouija board or a medium.
Not testifying in a trial or investigation because a spouse is being investigated or tried should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt or an attempt to hide evidence from the magistrates. But Peinado is smarter than all the judges and says that “inferences” can be made. We must hope that he does not think that someone can be prosecuted based on inferences.
Copies of the statement reached the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office, Gómez’s defense and the popular accusation represented at that event by Vox, which provided it to the other popular accusations, which include Manos Limpias, Hazte Oír and other entities from the underground of politics. You don’t have to be Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle to know where the suspects of the leak are.
OK Diario sold the video of the statement as a big exclusive, “the most anticipated image of the year.” In reality, at first it was a frozen image of poor quality in which Sánchez appeared without a nose. Then they uploaded three seconds of video that were repeated in a loop. The images had been distributed to the parties with an intrusive watermark, a large square in the center of the image that identifies the source, which made them unusable for television. It is unknown where OK Diario got an image whose poor quality diminishes its value. That is, if it is not a montage.
The World Take the photo on its Tuesday cover with the sensational headline inside: “The hardest 111 seconds in Sánchez’s life.” This is what happened to the politician who had to resign as secretary general of the PSOE – sunk in poverty after a spectacular internal crisis – and who thought at that moment that his political career was over forever. After which, he only had one task left: to sign up for unemployment.
That minute and 48 seconds could cost Peinado dearly. Moncloa saw it as a mistake that opened the door to filing a complaint, making it almost unheard of for the Presidency of the Government to take such a step in court against a magistrate.
A few hours after the statement, Sánchez filed a complaint against the judge for prevarication through the State Attorney’s Office for preventing him from testifying in writing. A month later, he expanded the complaint using the inference provision for converting a procedural right of witnesses into an “unfounded source of inferences with procedural effects.”
What was the point of forcing Sánchez’s statement in Moncloa, taking into account his foreseeable response as Gómez’s husband and the legal consequences that the complaint will have? It has not contributed any new elements to the case. It has reinforced the suspicion that it is all a scam. vendetta against the president for his political decisions. It suggests that Peinado makes decisions not thinking about their usefulness for the investigation, but about the media impact and the possible political damage that they may cause to the president. Of course, the Popular Party has turned the case into one of the axes of its strategy of opposition to the Government.
We must bear in mind that Peinado is 70 years old, not far from retirement, and intends for his not-very-spectacular judicial career to end with a great explosion of fireworks that will allow him to present himself to his friends as the judge who cornered Sánchez. That is much better than playing dominoes in a bar. Can he be disqualified for all this? His age will disqualify him in no time. The show he has put on cannot be taken away from him.
Add Comment