State Attorney General Alvaro García Ortiz testified for two and a half hours in Supreme Court, denying that he was the leaker of Ayuso’s partner’s confessional email and defending his actions, denying it was a “hoax.” Garcia-Ortiz has responded only to the prosecutor’s office, state attorney’s office and the court.
Their main statements are:
Regarding the accusation, “There is an unfair act”
State Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz has not responded to questions about the private prosecution filed by Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partners, nor to the general accusations presented in the proceedings. García-Ortiz justified his decision in court because of his “disloyalty to the court” that was prosecuting him, citing “four milestones” that led to his decision. Among them, the complaint against businessman Alberto Gonzalez Amador, which triggered the investigation, “omits” the fact that the businessman’s confessional email sent to the court for the alleged leak was “sent to another person by another agency unrelated to the process,” and that another email from that chain (dated March 12) was “passed on to another person” by the victim for “political” use.
Regarding email: “I haven’t sent it yet.”
“No, I didn’t send it.” In this simple statement, Álvaro García Ortiz denied having leaked an email containing confessions of tax evasion by Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner. He did so in response to questions from prosecutor María Ángeles Sánchez Conde.
About El Mundo News: “Public opinion contributes to the formation of distorted ideas”
State Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz defended the fact that it was important to refute the “false rumors” published by the newspaper El Mundo about the actions of the prosecutor’s office regarding Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner, as they provided a “distorted idea” of reality. In that information, the prosecutor’s office allegedly offered González Amador an agreement, but it was the other way around. In response to questions from the defense, García Ortiz argued, “The idea that Mr. González Amador was tempted to take advantage of the prosecutor’s office’s misconduct was emerging.” In his opinion, it was information that contributed to “a distorted public opinion view of what is going on.”
“The Insidiousness” by Miguel Angel Rodriguez
The attorney general referred to a tweet by Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, in which he said: “Summary of today’s madness: Before Mr. González responds, the prosecutor’s office offers consent via email, but the prosecutor’s office says they are unable to reach an agreement because they are receiving orders ‘from above’ and the case will go to trial.” García Ortiz said that Ayuso’s chief of staff once again handed down “this insidiousness, this slander, in the same terms to the Spanish public prosecutor’s office. No one has ordered the withdrawal of what has not been presented, there is no order of any kind. This is a direct slander.”
Asked if Almudena Lastra had leaked emails: “I haven’t heard anything like that.”
The attorney general cited bad relations with Madrid’s chief prosecutor, Almudena Lastra, whose testimony during the process is considered key to the prosecution. When asked by the state’s attorney whether Lastra had “filtered” her emails, as she herself stated, she replied, “I have not heard such words.” She explained that she had to “persecute” Madrid’s chief prosecutor for issuing a statement that morning because they did not have the “trusting relationship” to “address him in such terms.”
“There is a situation of dissatisfaction between Ms. Lastra and the management of the attorney general’s office. I think she feels professionally ignored. I think that the attitude she has towards me and towards others is personal, but she will not be ashamed to say so when she moves into the judicial or prosecutorial arena. Is it difficult for me to understand? “What happened was how a prosecutor in this country could receive five or six calls from the state attorney general, but he had other, more important things to do. He had to pursue the prosecutor and he didn’t get a response right away (which was incomprehensible to me), and there didn’t seem to be any cooperation,” he explained.
Press release stating that “strict measures are being taken” against “what was said”
In a statement, he explained his motivation for issuing a press release that revealed the reality behind the announcement. “This memo had to be drawn up. It is an organized response of the prosecutor’s office to news items that call into question the work of economic crimes prosecutors. We were interested in showing that there will be strict action in the face of what is being said,” he defended. García Ortiz intended to highlight the “impeccable work of my colleagues at the Madrid Economic Crimes Prosecutor’s Office.”
The office raid is “a particularly serious and painful event for the prosecutors”
During cross-examination by his own attorney, the state attorney general considered the fact that the UCO entered his office and made his Gmail account “available” to investigators “a particularly serious and distressing fact for the prosecution.” “I think I gave them every password I had. Some of them took a long time to enter because I had to ask for authentication, but I gave them every password I had for my phone and my accounts,” he concluded.
Regarding the reporter who published the confession email, “There was no conversation whatsoever”
“I haven’t had any conversations with[Miguel Ángel]Campos. I knew that if I had the UCO report, I might get a call. At the time, I was talking to[State Attorney General]Pilar Rodriguez, and the mailbox went up and I got a message. He said that, so I repeated, “I haven’t been on the phone since I became attorney general, because I’m going crazy.”And there are a lot of derivatives that night,” he explained in response to questions from the defense. Miguel Ángel Campos, a Cadena SER journalist, on the night of March 13, 2024, published excerpts from the emails of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner and also denied before the Supreme Court that his source was the State Attorney General.
He did not try to harm Ayuso’s partner’s “right to defense” or “honor.”
He asserted that he had never tried to undermine the “right of defense” or the “honor” of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner, Alberto González Amador. “There is no doubt about it.” Responding to questions from the defense, García-Ortiz said that the press release issued by the prosecutor’s office to deny distorted information about the case only “explained” the Civil Service Ministry’s actions, and that “any data was handled exquisitely.”
“The truth is not filtered, the truth is protected.”
“Before entering the courtroom, someone I didn’t know told me a phrase that I really liked: the truth is unfiltered, the truth is protected, and I think that’s what happened here,” he concluded. This concludes his statement.
About The Author
