The trial of Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz continues in the Spanish capital. For several days in a row, courtroom debates have focused on details unrelated to the core charges. Instead of facts, the spotlight is on attempts to untangle nuances and context that, according to the prosecution, could shed light on what is happening.
The testimony of former senior government official and Madrid Socialist activist Pilar Sánchez Acera took up a significant amount of time. The lawyer representing the plaintiff pressed her on how she obtained a controversial screenshot of a letter in which a lawyer for Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner admitted to tax violations. Sánchez Acera claimed she had received the message from a journalist whose name she could not recall. Notably, the question of possible government involvement in the information leak had already been dropped during the preliminary investigation.
Several times, the judge reminded both sides that discussing the presidential administration’s (La Moncloa) role in the case was irrelevant to the trial’s substance. Despite this, the plaintiff’s lawyer insisted on questioning further, citing the need to examine the context. Yet after a few more minutes, the judge intervened again, noting that the discussion wasn’t producing new results. As a result, the questioning ended without any fresh revelations.
The trial of García Ortiz began without substantial evidence, and in the first days of hearings, nothing changed. The main focus has shifted to minor details instead of direct proof. As a result, almost an entire session was devoted to discussing an already excluded matter regarding the government’s role in the information leak.
In Search of Evidence: New Theories and Old Questions
At the time, the Supreme Court found no crime in the prosecutor’s press release, which was published to refute rumors spread by the chief of staff of the Madrid president, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez. The statement mentioned that Ayuso’s partner, Alberto González Amador, was prepared to admit to tax violations. This press release became the basis for the complaint against the attorney general and the subsequent investigation.
However, the Supreme Court saw nothing illegal in the prosecutor’s actions but ordered an inquiry to determine who was responsible for leaking the letter. García Ortiz came under suspicion, although dozens of employees and prosecutors had access to the document.
Since no direct evidence has been found, the prosecution is forced to build its case on circumstantial details and attempts to link separate incidents. As a result, the prosecutor’s press release is again in the spotlight, even though it was previously deemed irrelevant to the case.
A Courtroom Drama Without a Central Plot
The first week of hearings resembled a convoluted film with no main storyline, where minor details overshadowed the essence. The key question — who actually leaked the controversial letter to journalists — was barely discussed. Instead, the parties argued over details unrelated to the core of the accusation.
Some participants and media representatives drew attention to the testimony of Madrid prosecutor Almudena Lastra, who in March 2024 had a dispute with García Ortiz over the necessity of issuing a press release. According to her, she accused the Attorney General of leaking the letter, but he refused to discuss the matter. This was essentially the extent of the prosecution’s arguments.
Meanwhile, two journalists stated that they had access to the information before García Ortiz received it, and that their sources were not connected to the defendant. As a result, after several days of hearings, the case is still no closer to being solved, and the prosecution is left relying on vague hints and speculation.
