Logic and reason lead us to think that Aldama spoke many truths in his statement although, obviously, we cannot exclude that there is a percentage of embellishment, vendetta or fulfillment, especially in areas which are not the subject of the case. We also cannot ignore the fact that some of the things he said are not lies but deceptions done to him.
If you believe there is an unbearable truth, bear it
Gaius Mucius put his hand in the fire out of love and loyalty to Rome. It was in 508 BC that the young man crossed the Tiber to enter the Etruscan camp and assassinate their king. Hundreds of young Romans had conspired to try their luck, one after the other, until they achieved their goal. Gaius Mucius arrived at the camp but, ignoring Etruscan customs, saw a man dressed in purple and stabbed him with a dagger, mistaking him for the leader of the troops. This was not the case. He was arrested and actually brought before him, who urged him to betray the Roman organization if he did not want to be burned alive. To show that he was not intimidated and that his loyalty to his people was unwavering, he crossed the room to one of the braziers and placed his right hand in the flames himself. As he burned, he said: “The body is of little value to him who aspires only to glory. » Faced with such a demonstration of courage, the Etruscan king spared his life. This is the rather mythical origin of the Castilian expression “put your hand in the fire” for someone.
It smells burnt in this country. You must be very sure to accept others on pure faith and without weighing the data.
Logic and facts show us, however, that it is probable that Víctor de Aldama asked to testify voluntarily, advised by his lawyer, to incriminate himself in new crimes, releasing a continuous flow of bullets without support for the sole purpose of to blow a hole in the government is pretty low. Neither his own interest, nor the expertise of his lawyer, nor the acceptance of the agreement by the anti-corruption prosecution allow such a conclusion to be reached. The strategy of lawyer José Antonio Choclán emanates directly from the Code of Criminal Procedure and is very skillful and well developed, it is not possible to accuse him with simple ad hominem arguments. It is obvious at this stage that De Aldama cannot claim, as a defense strategy, to declare himself innocent of all charges and thus hope to be acquitted. His position is such that it is better for him to try to be sentenced to minimum sentences and this is the reason why his lawyer transformed him into a sort of repentant, a collaborator of Justice, to whom the advantages established by legislation. Established, yes, because justice to be done also requires a kind of criminal law of the friend, in which those who are ready to contribute to condemning all others are rewarded. This happens in all democratic countries.
It is true that Santiago Pedraz had sent De Aldama into preventive detention for the Hydrocarbons affair and that the appeal to the Chamber for his release was unsuccessful. A collaboration then arises in the case that most interests the anti-corruption prosecution, the Koldo affair, and there can only be an agreement according to which once the declaration is made, the prosecutor, as he did in fact , would not oppose his liberty with measures in the other cause. You might be tempted to think that the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has gone crazy, that it has agreed to reward an absurd and false collaboration from which no benefit can be derived, but I won’t do that. The logic indicates not only the fact that Anticorruption considered the statement beneficial – in fact, it said so in a note – but also the fact that the sequence included the statement, then the publication, then the provision of material if this is the case. no It has already been seized and what was done was to open the way to where they would have to look to find the evidence. It is not for nothing that a terabyte of data and six of their cell phones are in the possession of the UCO.
Logic and reason lead us to think that Aldama spoke many truths in his statement although, obviously, we cannot exclude that there is a percentage of embellishment, vendetta or fulfillment, especially in areas which are not the subject of the case. We also cannot ignore the fact that some of the things he has stated are not lies but deceptions that have been committed on him, for example that he may not be lying when he says that he was asked for money for Santos Cerdán and yet this person was never bribed, because this money will go to Koldo himself who asked for it on his behalf. Maybe they told him that Sánchez wanted to meet him and that Sánchez didn’t know anything.
But we must not get bogged down, because we are not called to judge anyone and there is no need for the procedure to be resolved in two days and three headlines. I have no doubt that Aldama’s devices must contain many of the communications he had with the other defendants, there is no bird of mind that does not keep the little things close in case they arrive at turns. The curveballs have arrived and the little things will happen. There is also the judge waiting for Ábalos’ hard drives that appeared during the search at Koldo’s house and which it seems they have already managed to decrypt. There will probably be more information there, because no one cares as much about protecting things if it’s not worth it. In addition, other people will be called to testify and all kinds of evidentiary procedures will be carried out. As it always happens.
Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is resorting, as the name suggests, to deception or, in some cases, self-deception and only demonstrates a nervousness that, to be honest, I don’t understand . The campaign against lawyer José Antonio Choclán is both infamous and ridiculous. You will not find a single jurist, right or left or half-retired, who will not tell you that technically Choclán is very good. Fuck the country, as we did, by accusing him of defending corrupt peperos – my God, a lawyer defending those accused of having committed a crime! What will be the next step? It’s about having few arguments and thinking outside the box. I also suggest that we do ad hominem with true data because things that are not true are repeated on the networks. Choclán did not disqualify Baltasar Garzón as a judge, but he was one of the lawyers heard in prison on his orders and it was not even him who filed the complaint, it was also the lawyer and former prosecutor Ignacio Peláez who did it. What he did while he was still a magistrate was to send Mario Condé to prison, such was his presentation.
I also witnessed attacks on the anti-corruption prosecutor, Luis Pastor, because he once held a technical position in Michavila’s ministries. The fact is that his last appointment to the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office was made by Juan Carlos Campo, Sánchez’s Minister of Justice, while Dolores Delgado was state attorney general. I also read resentments against the head of the anti-corruption prosecution, Alejandro Luzón, whose leadership was confirmed by Álvaro García Ortíz himself. Maybe they are two good professionals and, in this case, it is difficult for us to consider that they were deceived like the Chinese by telling a bunch of nonsense without proving anything. I read in this newspaper that the state attorney general was not informed of the position Anti-Corruption would take, perhaps it is because the investigation affects those who appointed him to office. position in which he currently finds himself in a complicated situation. Maybe they didn’t want anyone trying to ruin the look and contributions Aldama can make. I am happy that justice is able to move forward against anyone and whatever the political sign, I am happy that we are not a bankrupt state as the far right says, I am happy that the mechanisms continue to function even if sometimes they do so with difficulty because those in power have always tried to catch them.
In terms of pure logic and cold analysis, I would recommend keeping your hands in your pockets until you see how this ends and who it drags down. After all, we are not Roman heroes.
