The Kitchen commission points out to Cospedal: “He was able to receive a copy of what was stolen from Bárcenas” | Spain

The opinion approved this Wednesday by the investigation commission of Operation Kitchen criticizes the silence and the alleged falsehoods of some of the appearing parties, and lists the indications about others. Thus, about Mariano Rajoy, he assures that “not only did he refuse to assume any responsibility [en la Operación Kitchen], but came to claim to be convinced of the non-existence of the facts and to lie openly [al] not to recognize the fact of the existence of the box b with which the PP was illegally financed, as well as the existence of a conviction of any of the courts that prove the existence of that box b “. The document emphasizes that if one asks who the operation benefited, “the answer cannot be other than Mariano Rajoy and his Government.”

Of María Dolores de Cospedal, to whom the judge of the National Court Manuel García-Castellón lifted the accusation in the Kitchen case, criticizes that she shields herself in her right not to testify to refuse to answer the deputies. “It does not enjoy that right, nor is there a legal justification to rely on it,” the text highlights. The text also considers her as one of the “beneficiaries” of the illegal espionage on Bárcenas and adds: “We can not only affirm that she was aware of the plot and its progress, but that she was also able to receive a copy of the information stolen from the ex-treasurer of the PP ”.

The commission emphasizes that the former Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz, who denied to the deputies that he had knowledge of or consented to spying on Luis Bárcenas, “omitted an important detail” when he appeared: that his then former Secretary of State for Security, Francisco Martínez , he pointed out “as responsible and inducer of his performance.” For this reason, he accuses Fernández Díaz – who is being processed in the National High Court for these events – of having “the will to ignore or appear to ignore” the irregular actions of police officers under his orders.

The also defendant Francisco Martínez, the ruling makes him ugly to have changed “the content of his statement on many occasions.” “In the investigation commission, he tries to deny everything said in other published statements, including judicial ones, in which he pointed directly to Mariano Rajoy, Jorge Fernández Díaz and María Dolores de Cospedal,” the document highlights. And he recalls that both the notarial acts that he notarized before a notary with the messages he exchanged with the former Minister of the Interior on details of Operation Kitchen, as well as the statements made by commissioners Enrique García Castaño and José Manuel Villarejo, “indicate him as the person to which [estos mandos policiales] they gave account ”.

Regarding Ignacio Cosidó, former director general of the Police, he assures that from his statement he insisted that “he did not know of the existence of a political police” or of the “irregular actions” that its members carried out, despite the fact that both Villarejo and who he was then the Chief of Police, Commissioner Eugenio Pino, assured that they informed him of the progress of the operation. “From the rest of his statement it can be deduced that he was like a kind of ‘alien’ in the General Directorate of the Police given the ignorance of what was happening and that there was a lot of lack of control in his management as director”, highlights the document, which considers that It is not credible “that he was not aware of what was happening.” Therefore, it concludes that, due to his position, Cosidó “had reasons, means and opportunity and, therefore, the evidence points directly to him.”

In a report sent by the lawyers of Congress to the commission on Monday, the deputies are indicated that, if they consider that a person appearing has lied, they should ask the Bureau of the Chamber to inform the Prosecutor’s Office. The document adds that failing to tell the truth before a parliamentary commission of inquiry is punishable by a penalty of six months to one year in prison, or a fine of 12 to 24 months.

What affects the most is what happens closer. To not miss anything, subscribe.


Related Posts

George Holan

George Holan is chief editor at Plainsmen Post and has articles published in many notable publications in the last decade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *