The scenery of the Supreme Court, with its bronze chandeliers, golden treasury, crimson-covered walls, and high-backed armchairs, is designed to intimidate defendants with the formal gravity of the law. It has nothing to do with national courts. … A classroom at the town’s research institute. The state attorney general is used to moving in that environment, although not as a prisoner. Therefore, one of the unknowns regarding his appearance was whether he intended to give up the privilege of testifying from the pulpit while clothed. he did it. He took off his robe and stepped down to a seat instead of the bench where witnesses and experts sat. As established by procedure, it is at a symbolically lower level than that of a judge.
He merely answered the state’s attorney’s questions in a substantive role in private defense, since the charges do not seek any collateral liability. After briefly answering “no” and “yes” to two questions from his subordinates from the public prosecutor’s office, he spoke for about an hour and a half in a soft, almost humble tone. In his sworn testimony, he did not reveal any surprises or new unknown tricks. Only three points in his explanation caught my attention. His lack of harmony with the Madrid prosecutors who accused him of leaking confidential information, his naming of Ayuso as the intellectual instigator of the charges, and his persistent attention to what the press published on the day of the proceedings. The real reason for the confusion he is being charged with.
The summary includes the phrase that inspired the informative memo regarding two tax-crime agreement negotiations with the president’s boyfriend, González Amador. “They’re going to beat us.” In fact, his entire presentation was an exegesis of his efforts to combat the version that circulated in public. “We cannot remain silent,” he said regarding the “false rumors,” “insidiousness” and “slander” (sic) that were blamed on the Ayushista environment.
Although he justified his efforts as a need to protect the honor of the institution he oversees, his emphasis on news seemed to reveal political rather than legal concerns. He demonstrated that he was even aware of what appeared on Twitter in the moment, in the absence of “conclusive evidence” during a whirlwind few hours when the timeline formed the crux of the trial. He mentioned headlines and chronicles from six newspapers, radio programs and digital covers. And he confessed to having learned a lot about the functioning of the “media system,” which he used to accuse journalism, or parts of it, of acting at the behest of partisan interests.
This session did not give the impression that it impressed anyone in the corridors of Salesas
In that sense, this statement was a “meta-narrative,” or a story of stories. And it turns out that the reason stems from García Ortiz’s desire to overcome communication noise, although he is probably not alone. As he said, to protect the honor of the prosecutor’s office, he entered into a narrative battle that forced him to sit before seven judges charged with determining whether he may have committed a crime in this version and the reverse version of the exchange. That is, if their desire to protect the “truth” led them to reveal sensitive data that their position required them to keep secret.
The rest of the explanation was done according to the planned channel. He denied the leak, saying, “I don’t answer the phone. It drives me crazy,” and made lengthy claims about changing his phone and deleting data in what the UCO considers a guaranteed destruction of evidence, and harshly criticized prosecutor Almudena Lastra, who “had to persecute” him to answer the phone on that “dynamic night.” On the now famous and relevant question Lastra admitted: “Did it leak?” – and his dubious response – “That doesn’t matter right now” – he said, “I couldn’t understand what he was saying. We don’t have confidence that he would speak to me in that tone.”
By the time it was over, dusk had already fallen on the semi-deserted square of the Villa de Paris, in contrast to the hustle and bustle of nearby Rue Genoa. The session didn’t seem to impress anyone in the Salesas hallways. The verdict will have to be inferred by the court through consideration of the testimony, evidence, and reports presented during the oral proceedings, which are of a complex nature, given the organizational status of the defendants, the difficulty of proving authorship of leaks that are opaque in nature, and the undisputed political implications of the verdict. And whatever the verdict, it is sure to be subject to great controversy.
About The Author
