The Supreme Court has rejected the request of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado to impute to the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, for lying and for participating in the hiring of the assistant of Begoña Gómez in La Moncloa. The judges of the Criminal Chamber reject the reasoned exhibition and make several reproaches to hairstyle, from seeking the minister’s imputation with an “absolute absence” of evidence against him, without first asking the prosecution or even trying to make him prosecuted in the Supreme Court for the simple fact of having then been in the presidency of the Government. They also criticize that he accuses him of false testimony without a “judicial truth” about the case of Begoña Gómez.
The magistrate made the decision to bring Bolaños to the Supreme Court after a tense interrogation to the minister as a witness in his office. A statement in which Peinado arrived to the head of the Justice portfolio to seek information about who had been responsible for hiring Cristina Álvarez as an advisor to Begoña Gómez when she moved to the Moncloa Palace in 2018. Haunted, as she has already done on other occasions throughout the investigation of this case, she wielded a non -existent contradiction to accuse Bolaños of lying and, in addition, he also had a hir embezzlement
The hairstyle movement has not passed the filter of the Supreme, the first time that one of its decisions reaches the high court. The Criminal Chamber is overwhelming when talking about an “absolute absence of any indication minimally founded or endowed with minimal likelihood” that Bolaños had some participation in that hiring when he worked in the presidency of the Government. They also repeat an argument that wields several times a month by rejecting complaints against agorated politicians: “the mere arrest of a public office and the development of their functions cannot assume an automatic and objective attribution of a behavior of appropriation of public heritage, or an omission that allows another person to appropriate it.”
Bolaños did not participate in that hiring and did not incur a crime of false testimony. The Supreme Judges explain that the case remains under investigation and, therefore, there is no “judicial or forensic truth” on the case of Begoña Gómez. A final sentence. The crime of false testimony, the magistrates remember, needs that the witness’s statement be an objective falsehood and, for the moment, there is nothing to compare. In addition, if he intended to accuse Bolaños of Miscutar, he also had to recognize his right to lie.
The Supreme also launches another dart to Juan Carlos Peinado for not consulting the Prosecutor’s Office before raising the reasoned exhibition. “That omission is strange to the usual way of proceeding in the criminal jurisdiction that advises a hearing to the Fiscal Ministry, mandatory in cases of competence, and advisable in resolutions such as that carried out,” says the judges. They get to accuse of hiding relevant data in their reasoned exhibition that the Prosecutor’s Office had to contribute and explains that the Madrid audience car that allows him to move forward with that line of investigation also does not contribute indications against Bolaños.
Courts stop hairstyle
Judge Peinado opened the case against Begoña Gómez more than a year ago, when the pseudosindicato ultra clean hands filed a complaint that brought up up to eight press clippings, one of them a bulle recognized as such by themselves. At first the proceedings revolved around Gomez’s relationship with businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés and if he had favored his companies in public hiring processes with alleged letters of recommendation, but quickly became a Macrocousa about his work at the Complutense University and Africa Center as well as the rescue of Air Europa and about the hiring of an advisor in Moncloa for her.
The Provincial Court of Madrid has been limiting its research for several months, resolutions in which the opening of the investigation endorses but limits its initiatives, often supported by the accusations linked to the extreme right. From canceling the records to the Barrabés businessman while he was hospitalized to urging him on several occasions to stop investigating without evidence or indications the role that the accusations attribute to Begoña Gómez in the rescue of Air Europa. The judges have also criticized that he has accused witnesses as the rector of the Complutense or Juan José Güemes for non -existent contradictions.
The line of investigation that keeps combing more active in its court in the Plaza de Castilla is the one that affects Cristina Álvarez, assistant hired in Moncloa in 2018 to advise Begoña Gómez, as has happened with all the wives of the government presidents. The magistrate understands that Álvarez also attended Gomez in his private tasks, as in the management of his master’s degree and his extraordinary chair in the UCM, and that that could constitute a crime of embezzlement of public money.
Source: www.eldiario.es
