From left: Pablo Iglesias, Ione Belarra, Irene Montero and Juan Carlos Monedero, at a Podemos event in November 2022. Olmo Calvo
Podemos entered the Spanish government for the first time in January 2020 and just six months later, Judge Juan José Escalonilla had already indicted him as a legal entity for the so-called Neurona case. The judge in charge of a court of inquiry in Madrid (Number 42) thus denounced one of the parties backing the first coalition government since the Second Republic, and furthered a macro cause virtually supported only by the testimony of two former lawyers The formation stands in conflict with the leadership and has been sowing mistrust of the political force for more than three years. That is, for almost the entire past legislative period. Now having finally ruled out the crime of illegal financing, Escalonilla has sidelined Podemos and one of its co-founders, Juan Carlos Monedero, but is keeping the final details of the synopsis alive while awaiting an interviewed expert to report that he tried to prepare. almost two years.
More information
The political dimension of the Neurona case is therefore out of the question. Escalonilla has put together a summary that has echoes of macroeconomic connections right from the start. Since the summer of 2020, with the testimony of a former party lawyer (José Manuel Calvente) as the first basis and the doubts of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Auditors about the hiring of the Mexican consulting firm Neurona for the April 2019 general elections, the judge has advanced up to 10 different lines of inquiry in order to to scrutinize the party, touching on a wide range of topics: from its relationship with Latin American business to alleged bonuses for high-ranking officials; alleged additional costs in the reform of the headquarters; the alleged diversion of funds from the Training Solidarity Fund, a fund to which its members donate part of their salaries for social purposes; or even the alleged use of Podemos employees to care for the daughter of the current Minister of Equality, Irene Montero, and the former Vice President of the Government, Pablo Iglesias – the so-called nanny case.
But none of this was true, as evidenced by the files on all parts of the case, which repeat the phrase: “There are no leads.” [de delito]“. “What was done against Podemos is a dirty war against the most shameful party in our democracy,” says Juan Carlos Monedero, whom the judge also indicted in February 2021 as the alleged commission agent who would have linked the creation to Neurona – which Escalonilla described as cited a now-excluded avenue for illegally financing the party or foreign political forces, or for compensating external agents who helped found We can in 2014—.
Ione Belarra, the party’s current general secretary, made a similar statement this Friday: “The fake case [falso] The battle between Neurona and Podemos lasts more than three years. A clear case of lawfare [guerra jurídica] to pursue the political force that boldly advances the best transformations. It’s not against us, it’s against democracy. My warmest embrace goes out to my persecuted comrades.” “Calvente initiated this fake case, which Judge Escalonilla was happy to promote. [Es] a judicial prosecution,” stressed the training on Twitter.
Podemos defended his innocence from the start and reiterated that the matter would end in naught. However, the party remembers the damage to its reputation caused by the court case, which has found increased resonance in right-wing parties and in certain media outlets. The PP called for the resignation of Iglesias, then vice-president of the government, after the formation allegation; and the far-right Vox emerged as a popular accusation of promoting roundup against their political opponent. A popular accusation was also joined by the association of European lawyers Pro Lege, which is very critical of the Left Party, although it informed the judge this Friday that it would stop the proceedings after it became known that Podemos had been excluded.
What affects most is what happens closer. To make sure you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
“This is an embarrassment for judges, journalists and politicians,” emphasizes Monedero: “Years of indictment. All with the sole aim of casting suspicion on a political force whose crime is to seek to improve democracy. They wanted to bring us to our knees. They haven’t made it yet. The co-founder of Podemos attacks the “Tertulianos mercenaries” and the media that accepted accusations that were not supported by “evidence”.
“Improper”
Some conservative media had front-page headlines like this: “Justice exposes Podemos’ Box B” and “Architect also admits: Podemos falsified the price of the renovation of its headquarters.” Last January, the website Okdiario claimed that the judge investigated “Pablo Iglesias for diverting public funds to a Chavista consulting firm”. The case had been closed more than six months ago without it ever being directed against the former vice president. Escalonilla was then forced to issue a resolution asserting that his court had “wrongly” included the Podemos leader in the list of “identified” that some of his writings cite, stressing that this politician was never “a party to the proceedings.” ” has been. .
Having currently ruled out the crime of illegal financing and nine of the ten lines of inquiry, the judge is merely continuing the investigation into a possible election crime that cannot be attributed to Podemos as a legal entity, which is why he removed it from the matter this week (although he retains some of his former indicted positions, such as Juan Manuel del Olmo, secretary of the School of Communication and in charge of the April 2019 election campaign).
Escalonilla is now only investigating whether the party overpaid Neurona for the work he verified, although he also had doubts about it. For this reason, she has commissioned an expert opinion – which is still pending – to determine its costs and compare them with the 363,000 euros paid. However, prosecutors and Podemos question its usefulness, arguing that the party can contract with anyone it wants and that each company can set the price it sees fit. “Neither all offices nor all professionals demand the same for their services,” the political power defended.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits