The government spoke out for the first time on the orders of the Provincial Court of Madrid in the case of Begoña Gómez to once again predict the immediate case, despite the fact that the magistrates are giving carte blanche to judge Juan Carlos Peinado to continue his investigations, with a minimum limitation that in reality it already imposed months ago.
The minister’s spokesperson, Pilar Alegriaassured during the press conference after the Council of Ministers that “the file is clearly approaching”, distorted the arguments of the Provincial Court to present it as a favorable resolution.
At least this time he did not attack the magistrate, since he pointed out a week ago that Judge Peinado “has been pedaling nothing for six months.” The Court has now corrected that government assessment and asked the judge to continue the investigation.
To begin with, the resolution rejects the request of Begoña Gómez’s lawyer to archive the investigation now and assures that it must continue to determine certain reported hypotheses such as, for example, the profits that the businessman could have get. Carlos Barrabés of his proximity to Begoña Gómez. This rejection of the arc is already a setback for Moncloa.
So he shows the car which The “striking quantitative and qualitative variation experienced by the relationship between the companies of the Barrabés group and the public administration in the temporal proximity of obtaining the Chair is truly significant”. [de la Complutense] and take-off of master’s degrees.” To cite one of the points which should be studied according to the magistrates.
The minister, on behalf of the Government, also indicated that the order of the Court determines that Judge Peinado executes a prospective research, that is, without attacking a single reported target, which is clearly prohibited. However, the magistrates expressly specify that this is not a prospective investigation.
Concretely, they explain that “prospective is the investigation which begins in an indeterminate manner in search of possible criminal behavior without a minimum of specificity and well-founded suspicion, but which is not based on rationally suspect behavior (exercise of influence or promise of exercise to condition public decision-making in exchange for undue advantages), launches a vast investigation that allows us to know in detail all the circumstances that can influence and determine their qualification.
They say that it is not that and develop the idea that “itThe investigation is still a living procedure, which cannot be anchored in the facts initially reported as having been committed”, “it is a ““living object, moldable and successively decanted”.
They only question a sentence from one of Peinado’s writings in which he says he is investigating “all acts, behaviors and behaviors which were carried out by the person under investigation since her husband is the President of the Spanish Government and which appear in the initial complaint.
The magistrates emphasize that this sentence is “generic and imprecise“, but they do not in any way consider that this means that it is a prospective investigation and that is why they do not cancel this resolution either. If the Government’s interpretation was true, the magistrates would would have been canceled.
The minister takes advantage of this correction to speak of a “good amendment” and tries to maintain that the magistrates understand that this is a prospective investigation.
They are not saying it, among other things, because it would mean the cancellation of the entire investigation.
Alegría, on behalf of the government, also indicated that the Provincial Court “limits the scope of the investigation to the judge to a minimum.” In reality, he only excludes the investigation into the subsidy to Globalia, which he had already excluded months ago.
But even on this question, he emphasizes that he excludes it “as long as truly new facts, having incriminating content and evaluated in a reasoned judicial decision, do not appear”.
The minister indicated that the order “validates the reports from the UCO of the Civil Guard and the public prosecutor who declared that there was no irregularity. » In fact, the Court affirms that the Civil Guard report does not mean that no crime has been excluded, contrary to what the government and Begoña Gómez’s defense assert.
And he approves even less of the prosecutor’s report, because it also calls into question the now prolonged investigation.
With this twisted interpretation, Moncloa concludes through Alegría that “with this resolution, the file of the case is getting closer. There is no cause and we are clearly getting closer to the file.”
