The investigation of
the Púnica case
has proven seven years (from 2007 to 2014) of serious corruption within the PP in Madrid.
The judicial summary includes numerous indications of illegal financing through a box b —fed by contractors from the Community— with which electoral acts not declared to the Court of Auditors were supposedly paid;
through Fundescam, the foundation of the PP of Madrid that invoiced falsely, according to the investigation of the case, to circumvent the law and finance electoral acts;
and through the Government of the PP of the Community of Madrid (which financed its illegal advertising campaigns through companies to which it awarded contracts, according to the magistrate's account).
The alleged accredited crimes fundamentally benefited Esperanza Aguirre, the PP candidate in the regional elections of 2007 and 2011. But they will only bring to the bench the former manager of the Beltrán Gutiérrez formation (electoral crime);
the former general secretary of the PP at that time and former counselor, Francisco Granados (electoral crime, bribery and embezzlement);
and the then press chief of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Gallego (prevarication and embezzlement).
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, in a document signed only by the last of the three prosecutors who joined the investigation, proposed to file the case against former presidents Esperanza Aguirre and Ignacio González.
And the investigating judge, Manuel García Castellón, has definitively exonerated both in his indictment.
But some of those involved in this corruption scheme do not think the same.
The journalist Isabel Gallego, general director of the media of the Community of Madrid between 2003 and 2015 (with Aguirre as president until 2012 and then with González), has exploded after being prosecuted.
His lawyer has filed an appeal for reform in which he states: "The order must be reformed due to the unfair, partial and discriminatory nature of pivoting the financing of the PP on the journalist who was in charge (Director) of Media the CAM, which was never part of the Popular Party and on which there were numerous organic positions with responsibility and supervision of its management and full knowledge of its work, to which the process is archived with unequal arguments:
The person who worked for a decade to protect the image of Esperanza Aguirre, the same person who went to great lengths to publicize all her policies, who tried to avoid negative information against the president of the Community of Madrid during all those years, does not understand that the The judge includes her among the few people who have been prosecuted for corruption, which she attributes to the "unequal treatment given by the judge and the prosecutors based on the particular role of each individual."
Díaz Ayuso, responsible for social networks
The judge and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office accuse Isabel Gallego of prevarication and embezzlement for hiring Alejandro de Pedro's companies with public money from her general management to carry out propaganda campaigns in favor of Aguirre and González on social networks.
Gallego replies that she did not decide on that contract, but that it was imposed on her.
And he details who was responsible for these actions in the PP: "It is not inconsequential to note that in 2010 the person in charge of the Communication Secretariat was Lucía Figar [former Minister of Education in the Government of Esperanza Aguirre] and that of the social networks Isabel Díaz Ayuso [today president of the Community of Madrid].
This is stated in the case and in open sources.
Whoever was in charge of those tasks, the truth is that it was not Isabel Gallego.
As it is also important to remember that in those early 2010s, the fashion, when it came to the internet, were blogs and that each politician had their own.
But, as we made clear, they were not managed by Isabel Gallego, who was also not a politician.
Whether or not Alejandro de Pedro had personal relations and/or previous negotiations with the PP, with Francisco Granados, Salvador Victoria, Borja Sarasola, Lucía Figar, Esperanza Aguirre, Ignacio González….
It is something that was completely foreign to Isabel Gallego until she was introduced to her”.
Whether or not Alejandro de Pedro had personal relations and/or previous negotiations with the PP, with Francisco Granados, Salvador Victoria, Borja Sarasola, Lucía Figar, Esperanza Aguirre, Ignacio González….
It is something that was completely foreign to Isabel Gallego until she was introduced to it”.
Whether or not Alejandro de Pedro had personal relations and/or previous negotiations with the PP, with Francisco Granados, Salvador Victoria, Borja Sarasola, Lucía Figar, Esperanza Aguirre, Ignacio González….
It is something that was completely foreign to Isabel Gallego until she was introduced to it”.
Regarding these campaigns to improve Esperanza Aguirre's image on social networks with public money, the judge maintains that during the first months of 2012 the Madrid president was "the beneficiary of
online
reputation and positioning work carried out by Alejandro's companies. of Peter”.
But he concludes that after the instruction carried out he could not prove that "Aguirre had knowledge of the contracting of the works, nor of their development, nor of how they were paid for".
Isabel Gallego rejects these arguments: “The order dismisses the case for the two former presidents, but considers that there are indications of embezzlement in the person who hired the jobs that benefited them personally.
To refute that conclusion, we are not going to delve into the fact that both [Aguirre and González] were and are perfectly aware of the news that is published and that it was in their interest as presidents that their institutional image be improved.
It is irrational to maintain the opposite”, maintains the resource.
The former Director General of the Media of the Community of Madrid explains the contracting mechanism of the reputation campaigns in favor of Aguirre and González in this way: “It was arranged that the service be contracted with the budgetary funds of the General Directorate of Media, which in Absolutely nothing can be considered foreign to the Ministry of the Presidency, the Technical Undersecretary General and even the affected Presidents themselves and, of course, neither Salvador Victoria nor Borja Sarasola.
It is not Isabel Gallego who proposes Alejandro de Pedro, but rather it comes to him 'imposed' after being recommended by Borja Sarasola”.
And she clinches: “It cannot be taken as good that the General Director of Media be blamed for what Francisco Granados, Esperanza Aguirre, Ignacio González, Lucía Figar, Salvador Victoria, Borja Sarasola or others agree,
in case they did, with Alejandro de Pedro.
Legal or illegal”.
Gallego does not understand how all the directors and leaders of the PP who hired Alejandro de Pedro's companies to carry out reputation campaigns in her favor on social networks have now been acquitted by the judge and, nevertheless, she has been prosecuted: “If for the former Minister of Education, Lucía Figar, there is no crime, we lack the reasoning expressed by the judge that allows us to understand why the publicity carried out by the general director of the media about the presidents must be a crime. of the Community of Madrid, nor why these [Aguirre and González] were oblivious to the issue and the journalist who managed it should be prosecuted, ”he insists.
“And this, in addition to being contrary to the right to equality,