The decision of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado to bring to the Supreme Court a member of the Government, Minister Félix Bolaños, leaves in the hands of the highest criminal instance the examination of the excesses that the magistrate has committed since he began to instruct 15 months ago the cause against the wife of the president of the Government, Begoña Gómez. Hajinado has raised a reasoned exhibition before the High Court to impute the Minister of Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Cortes and in it repeats the maneuver that he practiced impunity on two previous occasions, consisting of misrepresenting the claims of a witness.
On this occasion, the judge goes further by attributing to Bolaños a crime of false testimony, punishable by up to two years in jail. And he does it based on a misrepresentation of the interrogation to which he submitted to the minister last April. Hajinado took a statement to Bolaños in the framework of an open separate piece to investigate whether the personal assistant of President Cristina Álvarez participated in a embezzlement of public funds by sending two emails from Begoña Gómez, which would exceed the functions of his position, according to the judge. Álvarez, who is also charged, since 2018 is the advisor responsible for coordinating the agenda of the wife of the chief executive. When she was appointed, Bolaños was general secretary of the Presidency.
The judge’s intention in the interrogation to the minister was to know who had proposed his appointment. Bolaños said he wasn’t and that he did not know who did it. He then explained that there are 2,000 people working in Moncloa, who did not meet the advisor until after appointed and never worked in the same building. The judge did not give him credit and insisted: “Who could have powers or powers to propose the appointment of Cristina Álvarez?” Bolaños replied that “the initiative” for the appointment of the eventuals, the case of Álvarez, part “of whom he was to be directly responsible.”
At that point, the judge arrested the statement for Bolaños to make steps and find out the name of the person in charge of the advisor. After half an hour of recess, the judge asked the minister who was the “responsible” of the advisor. And it is at this time that the minister facilitated the name that they just target on the phone, when he had called to ask: Raúl Díaz. However, in the car for which he requests the Supreme Court of the imputation of Bolaños, Hajinado affirms: “After the time that was considered reasonable, the witness said that the person who had made the appointment (…) was Raúl Díaz Silva.” The answer was never that.
Despite this, Hajinado holds in his car that there was a contradiction with another witness and is based on it to attribute to Bolaños the aforementioned crime of false testimony. That witness is Raúl Díaz Silva himself, which the judge expressly asked if he knew who had appointed the assistant. He replied that he didn’t know. “I do not carry that issue, honor,” replied the position of La Moncloa.
According to comb, Bolaños’s statement was “uncertain” and that alleged incoherence in the story of both witnesses is the “main indication” that leads him to ask the Supreme to investigate the minister for false testimony. The judge attributes Bolaños “a totally prterva attitude [perversa]”And he affirms that his interrogation is” the paradigm of an oxymoron. “Haly alludes to Bolaños, being a minister of justice, is also the major notary of the kingdom. And, therefore, who acts as a feeder in solemn acts of the State.
The minister appeared on Tuesday afternoon at Congress and said that the judge’s reasoned exhibition “contains bulk errors”, so he was confident that a supreme “professional and impartial” rejects her. Asked whether he considers that Hajinado has prevailed, he said that it is something that does not correspond to say, although he recalled that “there have been courts that have revoked part” of their instruction. The Provincial Court, which is the higher instance that reviews the decisions of the instructional judges, as is the case of hairstyle, has given a partial guarantee to its inquiries, but has also corrected some of its excesses.
In addition to the crime of false testimony, Hajinado asks the Supreme to investigate Bolaños as “co -author” of a crime of embezzlement. The judge argues that the minister was able to “participate directly in the appointment” of the assistant and “knew or did not control” the tasks performed by her. His thesis is that the crime of embezzlement is “permanent”, so all the people who had “under their responsibility the administration of the correct destination of public heritage” must be considered “participants of said crime.”
As an indication, the judge contributes two emails that the advisor sent in November 2021 on behalf of Begoña Gómez to directives of Reale, insurance entity that financed the chair that Sánchez’s woman directed at the Complutense University in relation to an event in which he was going to participate. At that time, Bolaños was no longer the general secretary of the Presidency.
Third incident
The misrepresentation of Bolaños’s statement is the third incident of this type throughout the instruction. The president of the Center for Studies of the Institute of Business, Juan José Güemes, former councilor of Madrid in the Government of Esperanza Aguirre, was charged five months because Peinado said that his testimony about the hiring of Begoña Gómez contradicted himself with the one he had previously lent to the Chief of Human Resources of the agency. The textual of both statements, however, made it clear that Sonsoles Gil of Antuñano did not say what the magistrate transferred in his question to Güemes when he interrogated him in court.
Only when the Provincial Court intervened, Güemes stopped holding the status of investigation in a cause for corruption. He had previously tried the practice as doubtful to declare as a witness and then be called as investigated and that the judge had already applied to businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés.
Little did not matter to be a videographic testimony that the interpretation of Güemes’ words and their subordinated supposed an invention of hairstyle. The judge repeated the maneuver again to force a careful between Cristina Álvarez, the advisor whose hiring has resulted in the request for imputation of Bolaños, and an old position of Moncloa.
The then witness explained that her position depended on the government’s presidency cabinet. For his part, Alfredo González Gómez, Deputy Secretary General of the Presidency at the time of the events, ratified this aspect and explained that, although he signs the appointment, the proposals came from different organs of Moncloa. In the case of this assistant, González made it clear that the proposal of his hiring left the presidency cabinet, and not from the General Secretariat of Presidency that Bolaños then directed.
On this occasion, Álvarez’s lawyer presented a letter warning of the lack of discrepancy between both testimonies. The judge suspended Careo because Gomez’s advisor had a trip. Then Hajino has not resumed his Careo initiative.
Clean hands complaint
Hairstyle’s intentions began to appear since he admitted to process, in secret, a complaint of clean hands that limited himself to attaching eight press information about the wife of the president of the Government, including a publication of The Objective confused Begoña Gómez with another woman who was called the same, the one who had really obtained a subsidy.
The cause has come to have five accused, although the Provincial Court has recently forced to reduce that number to three. The Prosecutor’s Office still does not appreciate indications of crime in any of them and coincides with the defenses in criticizing the “prospective” character of the investigation. “Unusual” instruction, “general cause” … The prosecutor exhausts the terms. The complaints for prevarication against the judge presented by the State’s lawyer, on behalf of the presidency of the Government, and the defense of Begoña Gómez were rejected by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.
Hairstyle has not stopped forcing the criminal prosecution law and the Criminal Code since then, as a holder and despite the little success it has had for the investigation. The judge has appeared twice at the Moncloa Palace to take a statement, as witnesses, the president of the Government and Bolaños himself. The latter included a grotesque scene, with the magistrate asking to raise his table to be above the minister, whose statement he interrupted to be called on the phone and found out of the answer to what he had asked.
To take a statement to Sanchez, he played with the deadlines in such a way that there was no time for the higher instance to resolve an eventual appeal. On that occasion, the hairstyle Tirabuzón consisted of ensuring that he took a statement to Sánchez as a husband of Begoña Gómez and not from the president of the Government, which enabled the politician to declare in writing. Sánchez, as expected, accepted his right not to testify against a direct relative. End of the expedition to La Moncloa between great media expectation.
The maneuver with Air Europa
The feeling of impunity with which the judge acts has been timidly interrupted with some corrections of the Provincial Court. These have only arrived when he combed ostentatiously challenged the limitations he had imposed. One of them has to do with the insistence on investigating the rescue of Air Europa in Pandemia, using Begoña Gómez again, who suspects intervened in government financing so that the airline remained afloat in the middle of the Covid crisis.
It did not help him that the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard wrote two attestants in which he did not appreciate the crime of the woman of the President of the Government. In one of their conclusions the agents wrote that there was no record that the fact of coinciding with two events with the owners of Globalia by Gómez would have influenced the “ministerial” decision of the rescue.
The Madrid audience began to put limits on that line of investigation, but hairstyle managed to skip them. The judge came to write that reports is not investigating, that investigating is calling someone to declare the court. So he, he claimed, wasn’t investigating. Before withdrawal, Judge Peinado ordered the State intervention a new report on Globalia, the company owner of the airline, and then recognized that the company’s name had confused.
Source: www.eldiario.es
