The WhatsApps that Juan Lobato delivered this Friday to the Supreme Court show that it was Pilar Sánchez Acerathen chief of staff of Oscar Lopezwho sent the former secretary general of the PSOE-M a document in which the boyfriend of Ayuso, Alberto Gonzalez Amadorallegedly admitted to two tax offenses.
There is no news on this specific point. The news had already been published by several media, including EL ESPAÑOL, last week.
The key question is who gave this document to Pilar Sánchez Acera. A document containing the private information of a private citizen that only the Department of Finance or the state attorney general’s office can know and the leak of which constitutes the crime of disclosure of secrets.
La Moncloa did not want to reveal who is the original source of this information, in itself suspicious, even incriminating, and tried to confuse the chronology of events by claiming that this data had already been published by the media.
He also said that at least some of this information was leaked by Miguel Angel RodríguezAyuso’s chief of staff.
The first statement is false. As demonstrated by Lobato’s WhatsApp messages, the exchange of messages between the former secretary general of the PSOE of Madrid and Sánchez Acera precedes the publication of this information in the press.
The second statement is irrelevant. If Miguel Ángel Rodríguez had disclosed partial information about Alberto González Amador, he would have done so with his consent, which does not constitute a crime.
However, whoever disclosed this document commits a crime punishable by the Penal Code.
EL ESPAÑOL today publishes a new detail that clearly points in a specific direction: the State Attorney General’s Office.
Because the document that Pilar Sánchez Acera sends to Lobato, and which she defines as “a letter”, is not in reality a letter, but an email that someone manipulated to remove key details.
The first of these, the recipient of the email.
The second, the title of the message, where it is clearly stated that the document is not “the recognition of two crimes”, but a “proposal for compliance”, something very different and totally common in this type of procedures .
And why would anyone want to remove these two key details from the document?
There is only one plausible answer to this question. That the recipient of the message, that is to say the one who disclosed it, is the Prosecutor’s Office, and that the intention in manipulating it was to “sell” the idea that Alberto González Amador is a confessed fraudster .
All this is a further indication that Moncloa allegedly used a state institution like the Prosecutor’s Office to illegally obtain private information from a private citizen with the aim of destroying a political rival, in this case Isabel Díaz Ayuso, in also manipulating reality and generate a hoax for which the media close to Moncloa would have acted as a rehearsal antenna.
The sum of these two circumstances places us in areas very far from the rule of law and obliges the Government to provide immediate explanations. The mere suspicion that the executive ordered the prosecution to commit a crime and launched a dirty war operation against Ayuso should put all Spanish citizens on alert. All democracies have points of no return.
For the moment, the political responsibility of Moncloa is obvious. As for the criminal, we will know as the judges progress in their investigations..
