Journalists exonerate the attorney general, and the Spanish government insists there is "no evidence."

MadridThe defense made by the Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez, on Sunday in The CountryThe assertion of the "innocence" of the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, has infuriated the right wing, which considers it a way to "pressure" the Supreme Court. According to Moncloa Palace, nothing could be further from the truth. This Tuesday, the spokesperson for the Spanish government and Minister of Education, Pilar Alegría, reaffirmed that "there is no evidence" to convict the Attorney General, basing her statement on the testimony of various witnesses who appeared before the Supreme Court. Last week, a journalist fromEldiario.es He already exonerated him, categorically asserting that García Ortiz was "innocent" and that he was not the source who provided the leaked email.Two other journalists corroborated this version on the fourth day of the trial. Miguel Ángel Campos, a journalist with Cadena SER, who published the contents of the February 2, 2024, message containing confidential information about Isabel Díaz Ayuso's boyfriend on the night of the leak, also exonerated the Attorney General. Campos explained that although he called him that night, he did not speak with him. García Ortiz did not answer the phone, did not return the call, and they did not exchange messages. In fact, the SER journalist asserted that he had access to the email hours before the Attorney General. While investigators place the time when García Ortiz obtained the message at 9:59 p.m. on March 13, 2024, Campos testified that he consulted it early that afternoon. He did so from his source's computer screen—which only allowed him to take notes and did not forward or print the email—located in an office on the "third floor." This location puts the spotlight on the Madrid Regional Prosecutor's Office. Both the defense for the Attorney General and the prosecution have insisted on questioning the case in that physical space throughout the trial. The Chief Prosecutor of Madrid, Almudena Lastra—who in her testimony pointed the finger at García Ortiz—and the head of press for the Madrid Prosecutor's Office, Íñigo Corral, both witnesses in the first sessions of the trial, work on the third floor of the Madrid High Court building.

Another journalist who testified this Tuesday, José Manuel Romero-Salazar, who worked in The Country At the time of the leak, he went further and pointed directly at the institution led by Lastra. According to Romero, he knew even before Campos, the day before the leak, that businessman Alberto González Amador had admitted to tax fraud and was offering a plea deal to the Prosecutor's Office. In other words, he knew the content of the email from February 2nd. However, unlike SER, he did not have direct access to it. Who told him? A "highly reliable source" from the Madrid Regional Prosecutor's Office, the former journalist stated.The CountryRomero also denied having spoken with García Ortiz during those days and emphasized that his newspaper "knew [the contents of the leaked email] before the Attorney General even started looking for it." These two witnesses help the defense shift the focus away from the Attorney General, the only defendant, by suggesting that other people may have been the source of the leak. Campos has stated, in fact, that "hundreds of people" had access to the email before García Ortiz received it, because González Amador's former lawyer, Carlos Neira, sent it to a generic email address for the Economic Crimes Prosecutor's Office. According to Campos, it initially reached 23 prosecutors and four officials, and, without revealing his sources, "it was forwarded." "The information came out a month and eleven days later. Who can guarantee that this email wasn't forwarded?" he pointed out. The journalist emphasized that, in addition, there were also some printed copies whose safekeeping was not guaranteed.

Moncloa defends itself

"It's a fabricated controversy by the PP," argued Alegría, referring to the accusations of "interference" in the justice system made yesterday, Monday, by PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo against the Spanish president. "He didn't say anything he hadn't already said," he stated regarding Sánchez's defense of the prosecutor's "innocence." In his opinion, "respect" for the justice system and judges is not incompatible with being able to express these opinions on judicial proceedings. This stance clashes with the opinion of the Association of Prosecutors, the largest in the sector, which believes that the Spanish government's statements are intended to "delegitimize" the Supreme Court.

"It is up to the judges to judge, but so far we have seen that no evidence has been established with the witnesses: they have testified and said that they had the information before the Attorney General had the information," Alegría reiterated on numerous occasions during his appearance, adding that whatever the outcome of the trial, ".

Deleted messages

Another central element of the trial revolves around the messages that García Ortiz deleted from his devices, which, according to the prosecution, is evidence of guilt because, as a result of this decision, it has not been possible to verify whether he leaked the email containing confidential information to the press. The Supreme Court prosecutor and data protection delegate of the State Attorney General's Office (FGE), Agustín Hidalgo de Morillo, explained that "of course" public officials must delete messages and documents, because "unlimited retention over time" can jeopardize confidential or privileged information. The prosecutor stated that García Ortiz "had no obligation to inform him" of either the data deletion or the change of mobile phone he made before his office was searched. Hidalgo de Morillo also admitted that "there is no clear guide" on how to proceed regarding data deletion, but that the general instruction is to delete it unless there is an exception due to "public relevance" or relevance to the "documentary heritage" of a matter that needs to be preserved for a longer period.