The meeting ends This Thursday, the state attorney general summonedÁlvaro García Ortiz, with the College of Prosecutors to listen to the representatives of the General Office of the Prosecutor’s Office. The members of the board of directors gave their opinion on the decision he took on Wednesday to remain in office after being indicted for the alleged revelation of secrets of which the friend of the Madrid president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, accuses him.
A meeting which lasted about half an hour with around twenty interventions, including that of the Attorney General who was very firm on his decision. ensure that what he did was protect the institutionHe also defended the publication of the statement denying the deception regarding Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s boyfriend. Despite this, there were fewer interventions than expected and many members preferred to remain silent.
As reported by sources close to Sexta, a total of eight magistrates demanded the resignation of the state attorney general: Consuelo Madrigal, Javier Zaragoza, Fidel Cadena Antonio Narváez, Jaime Moreno, Elvira Tejada, José Javier Huete and José Miguel de la Rosa. Although they say that this has not been a requirement but a recommendation for García Ortiz.
On the other hand, Several prosecutors supported the decision taken by García Ortizamong them number two in the tax career. In summary, the prosecutor obtained the support of the majority of the College of Prosecutors. It should be noted that the management is made up of a total of 35 magistrates, including the Attorney General himself, and that for this Thursday’s meeting there were four absent – who were going to support the position of García Ortiz -, two of whom were tried. to intervene by recording audio and they were not allowed because they were not present or doing it live.
In fact, the positions contrary to the Attorney General are those of the trial prosecutors, which is what you requested for his resignation. Over the past year, they have been the most resistant and most critical of the work of García Ortiz and his predecessor, Dolores Delgado.
The Council, which usually deals with more technical issues, was not convened in the form of a plebiscite or to obtain support since at no time was a traditional vote proposed, quite the contrary. “only explanatory or informative”according to tax sources.
García Ortiz: “I know what I did”
The Attorney General of the State, Álvaro GarciaOrtizruled this Wednesday that he is neither the subject of an investigation nor an indictment but that the Supreme Court is the only one competent to establish whether or not he disclosed certain emails and added: “I know what I did and that is why I am very clear that the result of the investigation knowing what I did and what I did not do for myself can only be one.”
This is what he said GarciaOrtiz In an interview with the TVE show La Noche en 24 Horas, in which he assured that he had not disclosed any emails, “that a party partially discloses to give false information”. GarciaOrtiz He was interviewed after announcing that he would continue in office after being indicted by the Supreme Court for the offense of revealing secrets due to the dissemination of information about the procedure for alleged tax fraud of Alberto González Amador, partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso. .
In the interview he assumed he had made a press release to deny a hoax and said he would do it again, “but not in the same way”. “He also justified the decision by alleging that it was necessary due to the publication of information that was not true and which implicated two prosecutors and compromised the work of the prosecution and that an institutional response was essential.”
“I was not the only person in possession of these emails,” emphasized the state attorney general, who added that they were also known to the entourage of the accused person and his lawyer. Asked by reporters if the case was opened because of the various clashes between the state attorney general’s office and the Supreme Court, he replied: “I don’t think, I believe in institutions. “The autonomous role of the public prosecutor in relation to the Supreme Court or any judge or magistrate of this country.”
