How did the prosecution of the Attorney General come about?

MadridNine months ago the Supreme Court made the step of impeaching a State Attorney General for the first time in democracyThe investigation into the disclosure of secrets by Judge Ángel Hurtado has led to the prosecution of Álvaro García Ortiz, who is facing trial before the criminal court once yesterday. The appeals chamber of the high court confirmed that there is sufficient evidence of a crime for trying him for allegedly leaking "confidential information" about Isabel Díaz Ayuso's boyfriend. It's impossible to explain the scope of the case without mentioning the Madrid president and her personal battle with Pedro Sánchez, who appointed the Attorney General of the State in the summer of 2022. For the PSOE, the case against García Ortiz is part of the right-wing political and judicial persecution strategy against the PP president, while the PP leader tries to destroy her.

Now, beyond the judicialization of the political dispute, the trigger for the case for disclosure of secrets is another for alleged tax fraud of 350,951 euros and for document falsification. In this case, the person being prosecuted is Alberto González Amador, Ayuso's partner, who He will also be tried by a court in Madrid. for these alleged crimes against the public treasury related to her professional activity. The case came to light on March 12, 2024, and from the outset, the leader of the Madrid PP and her entourage, headed by Miguel Ángel Rodríguez (MÁR), his controversial chief of staff, chose to defend themselves from this scandal with political argumentsThe next day at night The World published an erroneous version of events according to which the Prosecutor's Office had offered a deal to González Amador, when it was the other way around. From there, a war over the story began with the Spanish government and the Attorney General.

On March 14, 2024, García Ortiz ordered the dissemination of a press release to deny the informationThe World. Previously, on the evening of the 13th, some media outlets such as Cadena SER had already reported that Ayuso's boyfriend was the one who had offered a plea deal to the Public Prosecutor's Office. "On February 2, Alberto González Amador's defense attorney contacted the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor's Office via email (12:45 p.m.) to propose a plea deal with the Public Prosecutor's Office to acknowledge the criminal acts and accept a specific penalty," read the statement released by the Prosecutor's Office. In response to this public response, González Amador and the Madrid government launched a crusade against the Public Prosecutor's Office, which ended with the prosecution of García Ortiz.

The initial complaint

Initially, against whom he directed the complaint for revealing secrets of Ayuso's boyfriend It was the chief prosecutor of the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Pilar Rodríguez, and the economic crimes prosecutor, Julián Salto, who is the one who sent the email of February 2, González Amador's lawyer. The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) opened an investigation against them, which escalated to the head of the Prosecutor's Office. Even before García Ortiz was charged, MÁR, Ayuso's right-hand man, pointed the finger at the attorney general and even predicted that he would end up in prison. "Forward," celebrated yesterday on X the chief of staff of the Madrid president regarding the confirmation of the indictment, an expression he has repeated tirelessly in the last year and a half in relation to García Ortiz.

Following the investigation against both prosecutors, García Ortiz sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJM) absolving them of responsibility and personally assuming responsibility. This led to the dismissal of the proceedings against Salto and the indictment of the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. The investigation against Rodríguez continued in the high court, but was finally dismissed yesterday, leaving García Ortiz as the only defendant. In the Supreme Court, the investigation focused not on the press release but on the earlier leak of the email to the press. The fact that the content of the message from González Amador's defense had already been published in some media outlets before the release placed the disclosure of secrets at a stage prior to the release's dissemination.

The signs: opposing versions

The Supreme Court investigation has been surrounded by controversy. The Spanish government has accused Ángel Hurtado, the investigator in the case, to act without having any conclusive evidence It was the Attorney General who leaked the email to the press. Several journalists testified as witnesses, all invoking professional secrecy for not revealing the sources, who knew the contents of the email before it reached the Attorney General. The investigation has revealed that García Ortiz received it at 9:59 p.m. on March 13. However, no message has been found from the Attorney General, neither sending it to any journalist nor ordering anyone on his team. For Sánchez, who yesterday once again expressed his conviction of his "innocence," and also for the Prosecutor's Office, which reviewed the case, and for one of the Supreme Court justices in the appeals division, Andrés Palomo, who ruled against the majority opinion and defended not trying him in a dissenting opinion.

On the contrary, on the other side, both for the other two judges who have confirmed the decision, as for Hurtado or the popular accusations and the PP, there is sufficient basis for the case to go to trial. Among the indications they cite is the fact that the Attorney General changed his mobile phone shortly after the indictment and delete messages from your devices. Also, the insistence he had with other members of the Prosecutor's Office to obtain González Amador's defense email and the time difference between his receipt and the publication by Cadena SER just a couple of hours later. Throughout the investigation and at this point, legal arguments and political expediency intertwine in the arguments for and against an unprecedented decision, such as putting the top official of the institution that prosecutes crimes on trial.