Antoni Bassas's analysis: 'Brothels and harassment to end the year in Congress'

This morning there has been The last question time session of the year in the government of Pedro Sánchez and Feijóo has been harshly criticized for the Salazar caseAs the scandals surrounding Sánchez are growing at a remarkable pace, let me refresh your memory: Paco Salazar was a trusted confidant of Sánchez, helping him in the Socialist primaries in Andalusia, bringing him to the Moncloa Palace, and even being on the ballot to become the PSOE's organizational secretary, but he didn't get the position because of sexual harassment by some female colleagues. The accusations were swept under the rug until they resurfaced, forcing the PSOE to apologize. Of course, when you add to a party that already has a former minister in prison for frequenting brothels the sexual harassment allegations against a man close to Sánchez, Sánchez's feminism is called into question. That's why Feijóo attacked him this morning.

"You've condoned it all: million-dollar commissions, apartments for lovers paid for with public funds, jobs for nightclub bouncers, and silence. Silence in Moncloa Palace for those who harass female colleagues. Look, you've gone from 'Sister, I believe you' to 'You look prettier when you're quiet,' to you in brothels. These are the same brothels you claim not to know if they financed your primaries. And now the women in your party know it too."

Sánchez responded that he wouldn't take any lessons on feminism from someone who supports Vox, but it was merely a rhetorical device. The underlying truth is that, within the PSOE, waving the feminist flag doesn't immunize one against cases of harassment. Some of Sánchez's most visible associates have been far from exemplary. And his ignorance, whether willful or not, hasn't been either.

Meanwhile, we already know what the sentence against the Attorney General says: that there is no "alternative explanation" for the attorney general's guiltIt's a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which is possible, but on weak evidence (so weak that there were two dissenting opinions, arguing that the prosecutor wasn't the one who leaked the information). The sentence states that "the accused, or someone close to him, handed over the email." In other words, the principle of "when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused" wasn't applied to the prosecutor; instead, it was: when in doubt, rule in favor of Ayuso and against Sánchez. The prosecutor left his house already convicted. This is the level of the Spanish justice system.

Good morning.