The PSOE ran out of bullets this Wednesday when it failed again in its attempt to search for incriminating evidence against the former general secretary of the PP María Dolores de Cospedal. The lawyer of the Government party, Gloria de Pascual, starred in a high-voltage scene with the president of the court, Teresa Palacios, when trying to distort the focus of the “Operation Kitchen” trial during the interrogation she carried out on Cospedal’s husband, Ignacio López del Hierro.
The businessman arrived at the Court one day before his ex-wife did and with the case dismissed. That is, provisionally archived but with the possibility of being charged again in the event that new facts are provided.
At his appearance, He stated that he had a “personal” relationship with the retired commissioner, José Manuel Villarejo. –also accused in the case–, but that he had never discussed professional issues with him nor was he aware that he “had agendas.”
He also acknowledged that he himself was the one who introduced Cospedal and Villarejo, although for matters that had nothing to do with the alleged espionage plot, the former PP treasurer Luis Bárcenas was involved, and that he neither knew the key confidant of the plot – Bárcenas’ former driver, Sergio Ríos – nor that Villarejo spoke to him about those affected by the so-called “Gürtel plot.”
Actually, López de Hierro did not provide any more relevant details for the events that were being prosecuted.which are none other than proving whether or not there was a plot orchestrated by the Interior to steal sensitive data from Bárcenas that could compromise the PP, despite the attempts (unsuccessful) made by the PSOE lawyer.
Paschal tried to deepen the relationship between López del Hierro, Villarejo and Cospedal, as well as in the political context that surrounded the events. But the magistrate cut off all her intentions in one breath: «Here, the PP is not being prosecuted and we are not investigating the prosecution of Mrs. Cospedal either. I already told you that in the processing of previous questions. “This is the prosecution phase and you cannot try to obtain incriminating data against what was your wife through this man,” he snapped.
As if that were not enough, the judge reproached on up to a dozen occasions that the questions that the PSOE lawyer intended to ask were “abstract” and had no relationship “with the facts at hand.”
“You cannot ask questions directed at third parties about people who are not accused here and who have not been ordered to open an oral trial because it is not part of the procedural legal relationship created in the opening order,” the magistrate attacked while the PSOE lawyer responded that “this way it is impossible to carry out the interrogation” that she had proposed.
The tension increased as The PSOE lawyer tried to reconstruct the context of the personal and political relationships that surrounded Villarejobut it reached its peak when Pascual tried to show an audio that would implicate López de Hierro in a meeting with the retired commissioner and the then leader of the Valencian PP Juan Cotino.
«Restricted documents will not be displayed publicly. The witness comes with facts from another and with the added bonus of being investigated. Is the question aimed at letting us know if there was a meeting with Mr. Cotino or this man? “If that meeting had taken place, I don’t understand the significance,” the judge explained to the absolute silence of the room.
The lawyer defended the need to contextualize the events to understand the origin of the relationships between those involved. “Those who do not know history are obliged to repeat it,” he argued, in an attempt to justify his line of questions.
The judge, however, maintained her position. “I have to control the tenor and origin of the interrogation,” he responded, reiterating that He would not allow the focus of the trial to be diverted to fulfill his ‘political’ objectives.
Thus, López de Hierro left the way he came, without saying any great words about his ex-wife, without satisfying the socialist pretensions and without his status as witness changing, once again, to that of being investigated.