The scene of the Supreme Court—bronze chandeliers, gold cornucopia, crimson-red-covered walls, high armchairs—is designed to intimidate the defendant with the solemn solemnity of the law. It has nothing to do with the national court, whose courtrooms appear … Classes at the city institute. The State Attorney is accustomed to moving in that environment, although not as a prisoner; Thus, one of the unknowns in his appearance was whether he would give up the privilege of testifying from the stand while dressed. He did it. He took off his robe and went down to the bench, not the bench, that was occupied by witnesses and experts. At a level nominally lower than that of judges, as stipulated in the procedure.
He only answered the state’s attorney’s questions, in a practical role of private defense because the charges did not ask for any type of subsidiary liability. He spoke for about an hour and a half in a calm, almost humble tone, after answering briefly, no and yes, to two questions from the prosecutor’s office posed by one of his subordinates. His testimony did not reveal any surprises, or any new tricks that were not known. Only three aspects of his explanations attracted attention: his dissimilarity to the Madrid prosecutor who accused him of leaking classified information, his singling out of Ayuso as the intellectual instigator of the complaint, and his obsessive interest in what the press reported on the day of the proceedings. The real reason for the absurdity he is being prosecuted for.
The summary contains the statement that led to the writing of the briefing note about the negotiation of an agreement with a friend of the President, González Amador, regarding two tax crimes. “They will beat us.” His entire presentation was, in effect, an explanation of his efforts to combat the versions circulating in public conversations. “We cannot sit idly by,” he said regarding the “tricks,” “cunning,” and “slander” (sic) that he attributed to the Iosista environment.
He justified his efforts by the need to defend the honor of the institution he ran, but the importance he placed on the news seemed to reveal more a political than a legal interest. He demonstrated that in the astonishing hours whose chronology forms the core of the trial, in the absence of “smoking gun” evidence, he was even aware of what had surfaced up to that point on Twitter. Headlines and news from six newspapers, radio programs and digital covers. He admitted that he learned a lot about the work of the “media system,” which is a kind of fallacy that led to him accusing the press, or part of it, of working according to what partisan interests dictate.
The session did not appear to have been admired by anyone in the halls of salissa
In this sense, the statement was a “meta-narrative”: the narrative of the story. It became clear that the reason stems from Garcia Ortiz’s desire – perhaps not only him – to overcome the noise of communication. In defense of the honor of the Public Prosecution, he said, he entered into a narrative battle that made him sit before seven judges responsible for determining whether it was possible for him to commit a crime in light of this passage of issuances and violations. That is, if, in his desire to defend “the truth,” he revealed confidential data that his position required him to keep secret.
The rest of the explanations followed the planned channels. He denied the leak – “I don’t take calls, I’m going crazy” – and argued at length about the changes he had made in the mobile phone and the deletion of data that the UCO considered a reliable removal of evidence and strongly accused Almudena Lastra, the prosecutor who “had to persecute him” to answer his calls during that “dynamic night”. Regarding the now famous and relatable question confirmed by Lastra – “Did you leak it?” – And his suspicious answer – “It doesn’t matter now” – he said “I didn’t understand what he was saying, we don’t have confidence in him speaking to me in that tone.”
By the time it was over, dusk had already fallen over an almost deserted square in Villa de Paris, in contrast to the hustle and bustle of nearby Genova Street. The session didn’t seem to impress anyone in the sales halls. The court must conclude the verdict by examining the testimony, evidence, and reports presented at an oral hearing of a complex nature given the institutional position of the accused, the difficulty of proving the identity of the inherently ambiguous leak, and the indisputable political ramifications of the ruling. It is certain that whatever the ruling is, it will be open to great controversy.
About The Author
