The performance of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado in charge of the case against Begoña Gómez has left a new episode that raises the controversy due to his questioned way of instructing. Peinado has accused Juan José Güemes, president of the Business Institute Study Center, because his testimony about the hiring of Gómez supposedly contradicted what the head of Human Resources had given before in court. The text of both statements, however, makes it clear that Sonsoles Gil de Antuñano did not say what the magistrate conveys in his question to Güemes.
Precisely because of this action, on Friday the general secretary of the PSOE of Madrid and minister of Digital Transformation and Public Function, Óscar López, came to accuse Peinado of “prevaricating” and of having “lied in court” for having accused to Güemes.
The action against the former Health Minister of the Community of Madrid is part of Judge Peinado’s confessed intention to investigate everything that Begoña Gómez has done professionally since her husband was President of the Government. The judge’s statement, reported in one of his chaotic writings, seemed doomed to be rectified by the higher court. But last October three conservative judges of the Provincial Court resolved the appeals against Peinado’s instruction and barely limited his claims.
Within the framework of this strategy, the judge summoned Sonsoles Gil de Antuñano, director of Human Resources of the Instituto de Empresa, on October 16. After some initial questions to find out about her performance in the company, Peinado decided to remind the witness that she was “under oath.” He then asked her “who gave Gómez the contract” and she responded that “the economic vice president [del Instituto de Empresa]Juan José Güemes”.
There is not a single mention in the entire interrogation as to whether Begoña Gómez was hired for the Africa Center plan because she was the wife of the President of the Government, as Peinado later distorted. During the witness’ statement, Sánchez, or rather his position, was only mentioned on one occasion. It happened during questions from one of the lawyers of the popular accusation about an incompatibilities clause that included Gómez’s contract.
Lawyer: Are you motivated because Doña Begoña Gómez was the wife of the President of the Government?
Witness: That’s how it is. If it had been used, something that was indicated not to be done would have been done… it would have raised a non-compliance.
With this statement, the judge summoned Juan José Güemes as a witness. Within his expansive instruction it made sense that the judge called him after having been held responsible by a subordinate for the hiring of Begoña Gómez. Until at one point during the interrogation the following happened:
Judge Hairstyle: The director of Human Resources stated at this headquarters that it was you who told her that the contract had to be formalized and that the reason or motivation specifically, she used the term motivation, was because you were the president of the Government. Is that so or is a confrontation procedure required? Tell me, answer me.
Güemes: It is true that I gave the instruction to Mrs. Sonsoles Gil de Antuñano to formalize the contract because I was her hierarchical superior and the one who could give her that instruction. Of course, Mrs. Begoña Gómez was not hired because she was the wife of the President of the Government.
Hairstyle: You are telling me that Mrs. Gil de Antuñano was untruthful.
Güemes: No, your honor, I do not know the testimony, I am passing it on to you.
A little later, the judge decided to interrupt the interrogation and announced that he was going to change Güemes’ status as a witness. He will be called again as investigated. In his statement as a defendant, which occurred last Wednesday, Peinado insisted on the falsehood that Gil de Antuñano had said that Gómez was hired because she was the wife of the President of the Government.
Five days had passed since The Spanish Newspaper revealed the manipulation of the testimony by Peinado and the judge had the recording of the Human Resources director at his disposal in case he had any doubts. In his second statement, already under investigation, the person in charge of the Instituto de Empresa repeated what he had already said as a witness, that he hired Gómez for her resume and not because she was Sánchez’s wife. To this day it remains under investigation and it is unknown if the judge will order a confrontation with the director of Human Resources.
Three complaints against Peinado rejected
The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has already rejected three complaints against Judge Peinado. The first was presented by a person unrelated to the procedure, the journalist Máximo Pradera, who accused the judge of having revealed to the parties documents of the case that were subject to secrecy.
The second was presented by Begoña Gómez herself and it reviewed the “bizarre” instruction of Peinado, who was accused of having undertaken a prospective investigation, prohibited by law, of which several examples were attached.
Finally, the State Attorney’s Office, representing the Presidency of the Government, filed a complaint against the judge for forcing Sánchez to testify, even though he knew that he is Gómez’s husband and that the law exempts him from doing so due to kinship reasons. , and for insisting on doing it in person when he was assisted to do it in writing. In the complaint, Peinado was accused, as Gómez had done, of prevaricating, that is, of knowingly issuing unjust resolutions.
The three conservative judges of the TSJM rejected the complaints and one of them, in the case of the one presented by the State Attorney’s Office, issued a dissenting vote in which he proposed fining the institution and Sánchez himself with a fine of 6,000 euros for recklessness. procedural.
#Judge #Peinado #takes #case #Begoña #Gómez #limit #falsifying #statement #witness #accuse
