The failures of the writing of the judge of the 'Dina case' in which Iglesias trusts

Podemos does not want to waste time and, just a few hours after Judge Manuel García-Castellón sent the reasoned statement against Pablo Iglesias for the

to the Supreme Court

, he has launched against the magistrate's arguments.

The training has made an effort this Thursday to make its version clear: they did not try to deceive the instructor by presenting themselves as victims of the

, but they are convinced of that hypothesis.

His statements and the briefs presented in the case when he made a 180 degree turn, where they recall that the instructor has not found any evidence, they are already advancing where his defense against the four crimes that are attributed to the party leader goes.

"It is based on rumors."

The puzzle has as fundamental pieces two crimes: false report and simulation of crime.

According to the judge, in a meeting held within Podemos in July 2016, where Gloria Elizo (then head of the legal team) was present, Iglesias “explained to his colleagues that he knew that the images published [in

and from the mobile of his former collaborator, Dina Bousselham], were the result of a leak from people from the party itself ”.

Despite this, the instructor continues, the leader of the training saw an "opportunity to act" against that website, activating his lawyers to expand with three briefs (from August 2, 2016, September 28, 2016 and the February 3, 2017) the complaint filed by the advisor after the alleged theft of the mobile and which was being investigated in a court in Alcorcón.

Later, the magistrate concludes, a "false" campaign is orchestrated, which continues in the National Court when the

is opened

, to present herself as a victim of the

.

This thesis is largely supported by the statement of José Manuel Calvento, a former lawyer for the party in conflict with the leadership, who speaks of "assembly."

A testimony that, for Podemos, lacks value.

"It is all based on rumors and hypotheses, from a man who heard ...", Alberto Rodríguez, Secretary of Organization, countered this Thursday.

Elizo also rejects the judge's theory.

“Iglesias did not tell me that it was a leak of people from within the party.

When they are published, many hypotheses are made, but Iglesias never directs the legal work of the team.

Not at all ”, the current vice president of the Congress denied in an interview, pointing out that in the summer of 2016 all the theses were analyzed within her team and it was concluded that there was“ a true and true possibility ”that the publications of

were connected to the theft of the mobile.

In fact, in the extension of the complaint by the Alcorcón court it is only said that "someone" should have given this information to Eduardo Inda's website, and it is never linked to the so-called "state sewers".

Aina Díaz, Podemos lawyer, also rejects that in the summer of 2016 they discarded the link between the theft of the mobile phone and the sewers, as several media have adjudicated after publishing some messages from the internal chat of that group of lawyers.

He simply insisted on a statement, because "until November 2016 the term 'sewers' is not used by certain journalists."

She also emphasizes that in those conversations she only defended that it would be “difficult to prove the origin of the screenshots published in

, which discouraged a direct legal action against Eduardo Inda, a reality that is absolutely different today after accrediting the National Court that Villarejo had a copy of all the information on the stolen mobile phone and that it had been disseminated to different journalistic media, not through screenshots of messages, but through complete copies of the memory of the stolen phone.

In fact, as Elizo and the Podemos management recall, the link between the theft of the mobile phone and members of the patriotic police was first raised in the case by the Internal Affairs Unit of the National Police, when in March 2019 it sent a report to the judge where he details that he has found a copy of the "data extraction" from the telephone at the home of retired police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo.

A line of investigations that the judge himself and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office investigated.

"We are not trying to deceive García-Castellón, just as neither did the Prosecutor's Office or Internal Affairs," Elizo stressed.

"A prior complaint is required."

The third crime that the magistrate imputes to Iglesias is discovery and disclosure of secrets for keeping Bousselham's card for half a year before returning it to him, after recovering it through

.

As provided by law, an investigation requires a prior complaint from the victim.

The judge himself admits this in his rationale, although he deduces that the former adviser to the Podemos leader has an interest in "proceeding" to clarify everything and affirms that it should be the Supreme Court who asks if he takes legal action.

Bousselham has already shown, however, that he does not want to act against the vice president.

"Dina has always trusted that Iglesias 'way of acting and that, at all times, how could it be otherwise, Iglesias' performance has been none other than protecting her privacy," her lawyer wrote in a letter sent to the judge last June, when the instructor had already put the target on the leader of the training.

In that document, the owner of the mobile says that she "understands" that her "friend" kept the card for a time, "since he had obtained it confidentially."

The vice president also tried to dismantle in another writing the thesis that he hid that he had the card.

Iglesias emphasizes that the mere fact of finally giving it to his former adviser - "voluntarily" and without "any requirement" - demonstrates "the absence of any concealment, regardless of whether it took more or less time."

In addition, he himself told the judge in his statement as a victim that he kept it for six months and, according to the leader of Podemos, then the judge did not give any importance to that detail.

“The crime of revealing secrets requires a prior complaint.

The judge says that the Supreme Court will hear from Dina about whether to excuse or forgive Iglesias.

But it is the other way around: if you do not report him, there is no case to send to the Supreme Court, ”Victoria Rosell (Podemos), current delegate of the Government Delegate against Gender Violence and career magistrate, has also added this week.

"There is no proof."

The crime of computer damage completes the puzzle.

Podemos insists that there is no evidence to show that Iglesias intentionally damaged the card.

The judge himself says in his rationale: "There is no direct proof of the material destruction of the card by the gauge."

And so far, all the instructor's efforts to clarify why the content is not accessible have failed.

The electronic device shows an external deterioration that, after ordering an investigation, it was concluded that it corresponded to the "sanding" that a specialized company did to try to rescue the information.

That possibility was admitted by the company itself.

And the Scientific Police said the same.

"The aforementioned sanding [...] would be compatible with an attempt to recover the content of the memory once a failure has been detected in the controller of the card that prevents its normal operation [...] The technique described in the Previous point would be used by laboratories specialized in information retrieval of this type, "concluded the document, dated August 12.

The judge clings to the fact that he allegedly had a previous internal "ruling" that he attributes to Iglesias.

But in the left-wing formation they insist that Iglesias never damaged it: “And, given the current state of the card, it cannot be specified whether there was any previous damage: But it has been proven that the supposed external destruction was unrelated to the thesis of the instructor who considered it the basis and element for the withdrawal of the condition of injured [Iglesias] ", defended the vice president's lawyer in a letter sent to the National Court on September 2.