8.9 C
New York
10.2 C
Washington D.C.
Saturday, January 28, 2023

Prosecutors exonerated Esperanza Aguirre because she “didn’t know” about the corruption in her government and her party.

[ad_1]

Esperanza Aguirre applauded by its directors at the time, Francisco Granados and Ignacio González, at the 2011 Madrid gathering.claudio alvarez

The Anti-Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office has declined to request the prosecution of Esperanza Aguirre, former President of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, who was arrested as part of the investigation by the punic case centered on the alleged box b of the PP in Madrid. After more than five years of investigations, prosecutors have concluded that they do not have sufficient evidence to propose to Judge Manuel García-Castellón that they be benched. Prosecutor Alejandro Cabaleiro clarifies his position in an 860-page brief to which EL PAÍS had access, of which he devotes nine pages to analyzing the keys to requesting the filing of the case against the former popular leader: “There was no evidence that there allow us to confirm that she was aware of the crimes.”

Aguirre was charged in 2019. Then both the prosecutor’s office and the investigating judge put her at the forefront of the investigation. Not only did they confirm that she was the major beneficiary of the corrupt network, but that the entire network “revolved” around her. She was the one who allegedly “drew up the search for resources to fund” her campaigns, which were “fundamentally aimed at strengthening and strengthening her political figure and cementing her as President”. However, three years later, the State Department has concluded that it does not have enough evidence to prove it.

“Based on what has been ordered, Aguirre’s involvement in criminal activities cannot be considered accredited,” prosecutor Cabaleiro said in his report, stressing that there were “clear indications” that the Madrid PP had his accounts “Faced” to illegally fund campaigns of 2007, 2008 and 2011. But the irregularities of the first two would be mandated. And third, it confines responsibility to Francisco Granados and Beltrán Gutiérrez, two of the PP leader’s trusted men. The first was his adviser and general secretary of the popular Madrid. The second, his manager.

For example, the State Department report refers to a phone call between Aguirre and his Vice President, Ignacio González, in which she says, “That we broke the campaign budget limit, well, it can. But of course Fundescam [Fundación para el Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid] You didn’t pay.” The prosecutor concedes that those words reveal that the president “could suspect or suspect that the electoral spending ceiling was exceeded”; “but it also shows that he had no knowledge of how it happened as his claim regarding the use of Fundescam, which rules out that it was a tool for doing so, when in fact it was, is an extremely solid indication of that,” he points out in his lengthy writing.

It is then when the public prosecution raises the thesis as to whether Aguirre was in “so-called willful ignorance”. An option that the public prosecutor’s office also ruled out due to a lack of evidence: “In view of the lack of evidence, answering such a question in the affirmative is not sufficient to support an allegation.” “The general fact that as president you had absolute control over everything that happened is clearly not enough to assign criminal responsibility for specific events,” he stresses.

What affects most is what happens next. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.

Subscribe to

“Profited from jobs” of the plot

Other research directions have focused on reputation campaigns on-line funded in favor of Aguirre. At this point, the public prosecutor repeats the same thing: “It could not be proven that he had knowledge of the award of the works, their development or their payment”.

Prosecutor Cabaleiro admits that businessman Alejandro de Pedro, whom he is charged with prosecuting, blogged about the popular leader in 2010 and made a study of her “social network situation”. Later, from April 2012 until her resignation as president of the community, politics “benefited from reputation and positioning work on-line” that the companies were founded by De Pedro. But, as she adds, there is no evidence that this relationship was made by her, but that it was allegedly made by Borja Sarasola, one of her protégés, head of her cabinet and later advisor to Ignacio González. The supervision of the work during its development was probably carried out by Isabel Gallego, its publicist. The prosecutor asks to prosecute these two subordinates of the former PP leader: Sarasola and Gallego.

“The content of the highlighted works was solely in favor of Aguirre, as campaigns were carried out to counteract negative news,” admits the prosecutor and continues: “[Pero] Apart from the works themselves, there is no reference to it [Aguirre] ordered for its execution. Furthermore, looking at the documentary evidence available at the trial, it becomes clear that Aguirre was never directly or personally involved with his social networks, so there was always someone responsible for such purposes, suggesting that he was unaware of it its content or method of contract.”

Isabel Díaz Ayuso, current president of the community, was one of its “network managers”, according to the public ministry, which adds of her: “Not only did she know Alejandro De Pedro, but she also had a professional relationship with him. ” Ayuso was never charged in this case.

[ad_2]

Source elpais.com

Latest article