Twenty-eight words spoken by Pedro Sánchez. 270 by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. The entire show was transferred to the Moncloa Palace for the deposition of July 30 as a witness of the President of the Government, reduced to a procedure that lasted one minute and 48 seconds.
Nothing else was expected. No one is required to report whether their spouse is under investigation. Peinado wanted to put on a show. It wasn’t worth Sánchez testifying in writing—that’s a privilege enjoyed by presidents and other high-ranking officials—and he needed it to be recorded on video.
In August, Peinado rejected the prosecutor’s request that a copy of the recordings made not be delivered to the parties, including the popular accusation represented by Vox and several far-right organizations, because they lacked “material and procedural utility.” In addition, the objective was to ensure that this content does not end up being leaked to the media, as happened with Begoña Gómez’s statement.
The president of Court Number 41 of Madrid had opened an investigation with maximum public and media impact, armed with press clippings and without the support of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Guard’s UCO, who found no crime anywhere. In the absence of evidence, we always end up with a prospective search – to see what comes out – and the show. The show not to be missed.
As expected, the audio of Sánchez’s non-declaration was finally sent and was broadcast in various media. It is curious that some have titled it with the most predictable phrase of the president. “Statement of Sánchez before Judge Peinado: ‘Begoña Gómez is my wife.'” “Audio of Pedro Sánchez’s statement in the Begoña Gómez case: ‘She is my wife.'”
Stop the rotary machines. Pop the champagne. Inform all your WhatsApp contacts. Pedro and Begoña are married and in love.
It is not that the titles are poorly chosen. What is happening is that there is nothing left to scratch. “Your Honor, I am taking advantage of the exemption of Article 416,” Sánchez said. The judge had previously reminded him that he was “exempt from testifying about anything that could harm him” (his partner). Given what Sánchez said in the letter with which he began five days of political abstinence, one might imagine that he would not make a statement, as the law allows. It is enough that he did not say in detail how much he was in love.
In rejecting the prosecution’s appeal, Peinado offered a justification that falls within the dimension of the unknown. It is known that the quality and clarity of writing are not the strong points of many judges, but his deserves to be highlighted. In a sentence of 436 words, the reading of which can hardly make the blood flow to the brain, the magistrate explains that the parties concerned will be able to interpret the declarant’s behavior, which “allows to form deductions, which, in their case, together with other elements of an objective nature, can lead to conclusions of an objective nature, in order to evaluate the possible concordance of constitutive aspects, of possible indications, either in an incriminating sense towards the person under investigation, or on the contrary, in an exclusive sense of criminal responsibility.
More or less translated into mortal language, what the judge means is that he believes he can deduce clues 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 stand.
Not testifying at a trial or investigation because a spouse is under investigation or trial should not be construed as an admission of guilt or an attempt to hide evidence from the magistrates. But Peinado is smarter than any judge and says that “inferences” can be made. We will have to believe that he does not think anyone can be prosecuted by inferences.
Copies of the statement reached the prosecutor’s office, Gómez’s defense and the popular accusation represented at this event by Vox, which provided it to the other popular accusations, including Manos Liminas, Hazte Oír and other entities of the political underground. You don’t need to be Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle to know where the fugitive suspects are.
OK Diario sold the video of the statement as a great exclusive, “the most anticipated image of the year.” In reality, it was initially a poor quality still image 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 televisions. It is not known where OK Diario obtained an image whose poor quality greatly harms its value. That is if it is not a montage.
El Mundo published the photo on its front page on Tuesday with the sensational headline: “The 111 most difficult seconds of Sánchez’s life.” This is the case of the politician who had to resign from his position as secretary general of the PSOE – plunged into poverty after a spectacular internal crisis – and who thought at that time that his political career was definitely over. After that, he only had one task left: registering with the unemployment office.
This minute and 48 seconds could cost Peinado dearly. Moncloa saw it as an error that opened the door to filing a complaint, which makes it an almost unusual event for the presidency of the government to take such legal action against a magistrate.
Hours after this statement, Sánchez filed a complaint against the judge for prevarication with the prosecutor’s office, for preventing him from testifying in writing. A month later, he expanded the complaint by using inferences to transform a procedural right of witnesses into an “unfounded source of inferences with procedural effects.”
What was the point of imposing Sánchez’s statement on Moncloa, given his predictable reaction as Gómez’s husband and the legal consequences that the trial will have? He has not brought any new element to the case. This has reinforced the suspicions that this is a mere vendetta against the president for his political decisions. This allows us to deduce that Peinado makes decisions thinking not of their educational utility, but rather of the media impact and the possible political wear and tear that they cause for the figure of the president. Of course, the Popular Party has made this case one of the axes of its strategy of opposition to the government.
You’ll have to think that Peinado is 70, he’s not far from retirement and he intends to end his unspectacular judicial career with a big explosion of fireworks that will allow him to introduce himself to his friends as the judge who cornered Sánchez. It’s much better than playing dominoes in a bar. Can they disqualify him for all that? Age will disqualify him in a short time. The spectacle he offered can no longer be taken away from him.
