The State Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested the archives of the trial opened before the Supreme Court against the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, and the Attorney General of the Province of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, for an alleged crime of revelation of secrets committed against Alberto González Amador, boyfriend of Madrid president Isabel Díaz Ayuso, reports Europa Press.
In their appeal, the State Legal Services indicates that the evidence presented against their client, Attorney General Pilar Rodríguez, and the Attorney General does not respect “the reality of the facts documented in this case.” In this sense, the lawyers point out that there is an “obvious and manifest error” in the statement that García Ortiz and Rodríguez are suspected of having disclosed the February 2 email between González Amador’s defense and the prosecutor who was investigating him for crimes. .
The public prosecutor claims that these suspicions are based on the fact that they had access to this email “also in their case, with the aim of collaborating in the preparation and dissemination of the note of March 14.” The press release denies the rumor launched by the Community of Madrid according to which the prosecutor’s office proposed an agreement to Díaz Ayuso’s partner and then withdrew it “on orders from above”. In reality, it was the opposite and the chain of emails exchanged between the public prosecutor and the defense demonstrates this.
González Amador filed a complaint against prosecutors over the press release. The Supreme Court rejected the accusation of García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez for the contents of this note, but declared that there were indications of a crime in the leak of an email, first published by Cadena Ser, the day before. In this sense, the Law Firm affirms that this email is not the first to be published.
“The first publications in the press containing literal information on the contents of the aforementioned email of February 2, and which assume that you are aware of it and have access to its contents, took place before it was sent to my client, by Julián Salto – the prosecutor of the case–, the aforementioned emails”, precise.
After examining the precise hours of March 13 during which several media outlets published the texts of this email, the public prosecutor explains that these news should have been analyzed by the Supreme Court after receiving the reasoned statement, “and that they were ignored in their conclusion of the guilt-ridden budget which determines the opening of the procedure” against Pilar Rodríguez.
In this sense, it is worth emphasizing that the first media that disclosed the content of the emails maintained by González Amador’s lawyer and prosecutor, Salto, “as shown by the literal wording of the articles, obtained the information from close sources “. to the defense. »
“It should be noted that this indication – against García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez – has minimal incriminating power, if it turns out that in reality the reference emails were in the possession of the person concerned, his defense, the prosecutor’s office and several media outlets according to which they declared having been informed by the plaintiff’s defense,” he adds.
And he regrets that “the political clashes which justified this matter being brought to the attention of the media and the press” were ignored “in the evaluation of the possible beneficiaries of this distorted diffusion, especially when it is also proven that some of these earlier broadcasts came from the defense community.
For this reason, he requests that the decision of the Chamber to investigate the two be revised, and adds that if Salto declared that on March 13 at 10 p.m. he had sent all the emails exchanged with the defense of González Amador to Attorney General of Madrid and the Attorney General of Madrid. attorney general after they were requested, it was because “they did not have them at their disposal even though a media outlet had already reported it.”
“The content of Salto’s statement highlights that none of them had the emails at their disposal and did not know the terms of the agreement, which clearly prevented them from having disclosed any type of information before receiving the email,” he emphasizes. out.
For the State’s judicial services, it is “clear”, in short, that “the leak of the email of February 2, 2024 to the media took place before” their client received the email from Salto and, of course, before She sent it to the state attorney general. “For this reason, the facts examined by the Chamber do not constitute a crime, and this special file must be closed,” it is stated.
