Peinado defends the withdrawal of passport to Begoña Gómez remembering the escape of an Italian former prime minister

MadridJuan Carlos Peinado once again defends tooth and nail having had Begoña Gómez's passport withdrawn and preventing her from leaving Spain to avoid her fleeing. He does this in a report he has presented to the Madrid High Court in response to the appeal by Pedro Sánchez's wife's lawyers against the precautionary measures. He acts as if he hears nothing and "reaffirms and reiterates" all of them. Two days ago,another judge, who replaced him, prevented that Gómez traveled to Turkey for accompany Sánchez to the NATO summit, but it allowed him to go to London for his daughter's graduation. “This would not be the first time that a prime minister of a European Union member state has fled to an African continent country to avoid a corruption plot proceeding,” Peinado maintains in the document, to which ARA has had access.

Talks about Bettino Craxi, although when he fled it had been seven years since he had stepped down. He was Prime Minister of Italy from 1983 to 1987, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the Mani Pulite case – an extensive network of political corruption involving the main political groups and various companies – and in 1994 he fled to Tunisia, where he died in 2000. By the way, in the document, dated June 30, Peinado goes so far as to reproach Antonio Camacho, Begoña Gómez's lawyer, for making an "unnecessarily lengthy" exposition of arguments to question the passport withdrawal.

Begoña Gómez's escorts

The judge who sent Begoña Gómez to trial also alludes again to the role of the Spanish president's wife's bodyguards. Initially, he argued that the agents could “collaborate” in an alleged escape on their “own initiative” or “following orders from their hierarchical superiors,” an insinuation that provoked complaints from police unions and led the Judiciary to open a process to reprimand him. Now he says he did not say it was “probable or foreseeable,” but rather that he posed a “mere hypothesis.” He expresses that he did not want to “offend or belittle” the agents' work, who “generally and almost all” act in an “exemplary” manner, but reiterates that the bodyguards' “mission” is to “protect her from third parties from possible attacks on her physical integrity,” and not to “prevent movements or displacements that she deems convenient.”

And he takes his argument a step further to cast doubt on the Spanish police. He alleges that if there were no “possibility” of agents who “do not adequately fulfill their obligations,” the existence of the Internal Affairs Unit “would not make sense.” “It was created precisely for this reason, its existence is necessary and its dissolution is not foreseen,” he concludes.

Finally, he recalls that there have been “various cases” where, with “greater or lesser social significance,” officials have appeared who have been the subject of “disciplinary or criminal reproach,” and cites the Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF). Currently, the former head of the UDEF is being investigated by the National Court because he had more than 20 million euros from drug trafficking between his home and his official office. And he also recalls the case of Carlos Salamanca, who was the chief commissioner of Barajas airport and was convicted of having received gifts – in kind and in cash – from two businessmen in exchange for preferential treatment for their clients and relatives.