Why do they call it love when they mean leftovers?

The verb confirmar should not be used lightly. In the headline of Abc “La trama Ábalos confirma en el Supremo los sobres de Ferraz” the usual trick is committed of taking a testimony that pleases our ears, editorially speaking –in this case, Koldo's brother–, and turning his account into truth through the power of that magical little word. In reality, the brother declares, accuses, assures, manifests, or affirms, but confirmar should be done by someone else. La Razón also clings to a declaration that is clearly biased to turn it into apparent confirmed truth: “Koldo's brother stirs up the payments in envelopes from Ferraz”. Along the way, they have dropped the adjective presuntos (presumed), before payments. I do not deny the existence of the envelopes, I only say that a testimony cannot be taken as true in such a bold manner.

On the other side of the kiosk, the envelopes did not deserve so much attention (and one must ask, of course, whether it is due to that journalistic tidiness or because it is politically convenient). “Ábalos attacks Jessica Rodríguez”, for example, headlined El País, which on its envelope-free front page hastened to point out that the testimonies had fallen into contradictions and emphasized the fact that the lawyer of the former secretary of organization of the PSOE implied that his supposed former lover actually engaged in prostitution. When the existence of corruption within the ruling party is at stake, whether Rodríguez's motivations were amorous or financial seems like a detail without consequence, but I suppose it serves as an entertaining distraction to fit this case into the trashy custom of carnal sins: traces of cocaine in vandalized hotels and paid sex. The question, of course, is who was paying for the party. And the suspicion, that it was you and I, in some way and always.