The Supreme Court judge calls Lobato to testify as a witness over the emails from Ayuso’s partner

Juan Lobato, general secretary of the PSOE of Madrid, will have to appear as a witness in the Supreme Court in the case investigating the leak of confidential data of Alberto González Amador, partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso. Judge Ángel Hurtado has decided to call him to testify that he is obliged to tell the truth to explain the information published this Monday by the newspaper ABC according to which Lobato deposited messages with other members of the PSOE in a notary office about the alleged leak of emails exchanged between the Prosecutor’s Office and Alberto González Amador’s lawyer in his case of double tax fraud.

The magistrate summons Lobato to appear as a witness this Friday, November 29 at ten in the morning and specifies that he will have to provide that alleged notarial act “which, apparently, he made in relation to the events, according to journalistic information” the head of Vocento. This information, which attributes to Moncloa the leak of the emails from Ayuso’s partner’s lawyer, relates that several weeks ago Lobato himself went to a notary office in Madrid to record a series of messages exchanged last March with Pilar Sánchez Acera. , at that time chief of staff of Óscar López, in turn director of staff of Pedro Sánchez.

According to the version offered so far by the leader of the Madrid socialists, neither he nor the party nor Moncloa received “any information at all” regarding the case. “It is proven that all the information came from the media,” adds a statement from the last few hours. The ABC information adds that Lobato made a series of statements stating that his interlocutor wanted him to reveal this email in the Madrid Assembly and that, if he did not do so, he would leak that information to a media outlet that finally published those emails in the morning of March 14.

The judge, in one of the multiple resolutions notified this Monday on the case surrounding this open leak against the attorney general, has taken note of the publication and has called Lobato to testify as a witness, therefore obliged to tell the truth, for this Friday at ten in the morning, also obliged to provide those supposed notarial certificates. In statements to the media this Monday, before Lobato’s summons became known, Isabel Díaz Ayuso stated that “it is clear that they have orchestrated a case from the President of the Government’s desk.”

A report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard made public this Monday points to the Prosecutor’s Office and Álvaro García Ortiz as responsible for the leak of the emails in which Carlos Neira, Alberto González Amador’s lawyer, offered an agreement to Public Ministry recognizing its double tax fraud of more than 350,000 euros. The emails and emails from the provincial prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, illustrate how different members of the Prosecutor’s Office mobilized to obtain those emails and deny false information published on the night of March 13 of this year, but without providing evidence about if any member of the Public Ministry leaked that information to the media.

The Supreme Court rejects suspending the attorney general

The magistrate still has to receive the analysis that the same police unit does of the material seized in the same search on the electronic devices of the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, who has always denied being behind the leak but has acknowledged having given the order to collect the emails to issue a statement on the case of Alberto González Amador.

In another resolution made public this Monday, Judge Hurtado rejects the request for precautionary measures from Manos Cleans and the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) so that the two investigated, attorney general and provincial prosecutor of Madrid respectively, were suspended from their positions. positions for having the possibility of directing the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office in this case.

The judge recalls that there are internal mechanisms in the Prosecutor’s Office to combat this possibility. “It should not be ignored that an action of this type would have to have the consent of the Prosecutor in charge of the case; even if that were the case and it represented an overreach by denouncing the situation.”