Important questions from the court president and testimony from journalists

3 sessions left seen as text, That period will involve the testimony of six journalists and the appearance of UCO investigators who analyzed the deletion of the Attorney General’s email and mobile phone accounts.

Of course it will be transcendental, Garcia Ortiz statement. The court will hear your case at the end, after all other evidence has been taken.

So several milestones remain that will determine the outcome of this unprecedented trial in which an attorney general is accused of crimes committed while in office.

However, some things have already become clear during the first half of the oral hearing. One of them, “Moncloa Connection” outside the scope of this trial.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry does not intend to deal with how the text is written. Email dated February 2, 2024.

It is a document in which Carlos Neira, González Amador’s lawyer, proposed to prosecutors a compliance agreement to resolve charges brought against the businessman for alleged tax evasion of 350,000 euros.

“It is the firm intention of the parties to reach an agreement regarding criminal suitability after fully understanding the facts.Indeed, two crimes were committed against the treasury),” Neira wrote.

The attorney general is accused of revealing the email.

Last Wednesday, the president of the Criminal Chamber, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, suspended the civil prosecutor’s questioning of Juan Lobato, former secretary general of the Socialists of Madrid, stressing that the Court of Appeal had “already withdrawn that part of the subject of the proceedings.”

that part It is assumed “Indications received by the Attorney General from the Office of the President”said instructor Angel Hurtado. An appeals court was set up in July last year because the case had not been proven.

Who proposed the agreement?

It also emerged that the chaos, which ended with the attorney general being accused of revealing secrets, began at 8:22 p.m. On March 13, 2024, Iñigo Corral, head of media at the Madrid Superior Public Prosecutor’s Office, received a call from a journalist warning him that Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Díaz Ayuso’s chief of staff, was leaking emails from prosecutors to the press in the case that stated: A conformity agreement was proposed to Gonzalez Amador”.

Corral informed his boss, Almudena Lastra, “He told me this.” that’s wrongMadrid’s senior prosecutor in turn warned the attorney general.

In that email, dated March 12, 2024, prosecutor Julián Sarto forwarded the complaint filed against González Amador to Neira, stating that the reported presence of more people “does not constitute an obstacle to reaching an agreement, given that you and your client consider it possible to reach an agreement.”

The March 12 email was published at 9:29 p.m. the next day worldwith the title Prosecutor’s Office offers agreement to admit Ayuso’s partner to two tax crimes.

The news sparked a frenzy at the attorney general’s office on the night of March 13, collecting emails exchanged between Neira and Sarto in order to deny that the proposed agreement came from the Ministry of Public Affairs.

Who proposed to reach a compliance agreement may seem irrelevant only when the context is ignored. After March 12, 2024, eldiario.es Puerta del Sol has begun publishing the indictment against Gonzalez Amador and the files processed against him by the Tax Agency, and a campaign has been launched by Puerta del Sol to show that González Amador is “subjecting to intense scrutiny” and that “state powers are leaking personal data in an effort to destroy Ayuso.” “Everything is very vague.”

In that scenario, the prosecutor’s office Offering Madrid President’s partner to accept sentence as fraudster It was revealed that Mr. Ayuso’s cronies were attempting to involve the Ministry of Public Affairs in political maneuvering, prompting a warning in Fortuny region.

At 10:20 a.m. on March 14, the literal text of the document (“Indeed, two crimes have been committed against the Treasury”) was disseminated by the Prosecutor’s Office for the first time, before a press release from the Prosecutor’s Office was published revealing that the proposed agreement came from González Amador’s lawyer via email on February 2. chain being 11:25pm March 13th.

evidence

The attorney general was able to access the email an hour and a half earlier, at 9:59 p.m. There is no direct prosecution evidence of a leak. chain being Created by Garcia Ortiz. However, jurisprudence is plagued by accusations based on a set of proven evidence unless there is a plausible alternative explanation, as long as the proven evidence converges in the same direction and logical and rational inferences are possible.

Last week, the defense rolled out a strategy aimed at neutralizing the possibility that the leak came from Garcia-Ortiz, despite the accusation that he disclosed the Feb. 2 email. chain being It felt like a “performance” personally coordinated and driven by him” According to the Court of Appeals, the leak of the material came from another member of the prosecutor’s office.

With this strategy, the testimony of journalists scheduled to testify tomorrow will be chain being And the country) and those who did it last week, 6th and eldiario.es.

If the journalist had received the Feb. 2 email before 9:59 p.m. On March 13th, all issues with the attorney general will be over. And in this regard, it is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt.

The informants who testified last week used their constitutional right to professional confidentiality to withhold their sources. Those who have to leave tomorrow will do the same. However, the legal system does not give journalists any special privileges that distinguish them from other witnesses, and their objective credibility depends on whether their testimony has at least some corroboration.

website of 6th He denied that on March 13 when he spread a news story at 10:10 p.m. worldrevealed that it was Ayuso’s partner who provided the prosecutor’s office with an agreement “admitting two tax crimes and one document falsification.”

This information was proven to have been processed in a chat with a US journalist. 6th At 9:54 p.m., that is, before the Feb. 2 email was in Garcia-Ortiz’s hands.

But the defense itself acknowledged that, both in chat and in subsequent information posted on its website at 10:10 p.m. It was the presence of the email mentioned. Nor is it a literal reproduction of the words.

moreover, 6th He included in Neira’s settlement offer a charge of falsifying documents, which was not mentioned in the lawyer’s email.

For this reason, during the interrogation of the channel’s journalist Alfonso Pérez Medina, he persistently asked questions such as: Did you really access your email before 9:59pm on February 2nd? March 13th.

only question

In the absence of a clear and definitive answer, the chamber president was left to ask the only question asked so far throughout the trial.

– Did you know about the content of emails or the literal nature of emails?

– Well, I think considering whether we had the entire email, whether it was a screenshot, whether it was dictated to me, could have implications for professional confidentiality rights.

– That is, whether it was literal or transmitted orally or by sources, Martinez Arrieta argued.

– Obviously, the news we brought at 06:44 was literal, and we knew the literal content of the email Neira sent, the journalist replied, referring to something long after the controversial moment.

The question asked by the court president is key. If the disclosure of the secret was in the literal dissemination of Neira’s “e-mails” (the famous “two crimes were indeed committed against the Treasury”), the fact that the secret was revealed before 9:59 p.m.

journalist of eldiario.es Jose Precedo asserted that he received a printed screenshot of Neira’s email on March 6, seven days before Garcia Ortiz met him. And the attorney general emphasized, “He has not given me a role in life.”

However, the accusation revealed that eldiario.es The literal text of the Feb. 2 email was not released until 1:25 a.m. On March 14, he did so citing the following information: chain being.

The informant explained that this was “when he confirmed” that the draft agreement had come from Neira and not from Sarto.

And he highlighted the fact that the title of the exclusive complaint against González Amador, released on March 12, was as evidence that he had received the February 2 email for several days: Ayuso’s partners defrauded the Treasury of 350,951 euros through fake invoices and shell companies.

“If we had filed a complaint We wouldn’t have dared to title it like that. “I did this because I received an email from Neira,” he said in a new demonstration, but did not do so during the investigation.

General accusations by the Madrid Bar Association questioned the testimony From a source: The Feb. 2 email did not support the headline affirming the existence of, he said. Fake invoices and front companiesThis is because Neira only assumes tax crimes and does not mention falsehood crimes at all.