The Minister of Justice, Felix Bolañosdoes not retract after the boyfriend of Isabel Diaz AyusoAlberto González Amador, has summoned him and the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, to an act of conciliation prior to filing a complaint for libel and slander. González Amador asks for 100,000 euros from Sánchez and 50,000 from Bolaños after both called him a “confessed criminal”, but this Monday the minister reiterated his words and concluded: “What do you want us to call you? Exemplary citizen?”
In March, González Amador’s lawyer admitted to the Prosecutor’s Office that his client had committed two crimes of tax fraud. The confession occurred in a private conversation, via email, with the prosecutor who was investigating Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s boyfriend, Julián Salto. But the conversation was leaked, González Amador filed a complaint and the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) opened a case. Finally, last week The Supreme Court assumed the investigation when it understood that the State Attorney General -reported before the Criminal Court- would be the alleged person responsible for this leak.
Faced with this situation, the Government has at all times maintained its support for the State Attorney General and has defended the thesis of Álvaro García Ortiz himself. In fact, Moncloa maintains that the attorney general did not commit any crime, but rather fulfilled his duty to deny a hoax by publishing a press release clarifying the cross-information that was published following the leaks. In addition to defending García Ortiz, Sánchez and Bolaños have recalled that González Amador is “a confessed criminal”, and the president has even called for Ayuso’s resignation.
In this context, Minister Félix Bolaños indicated this Monday that “in Spanish”, “a person who has committed two crimes and who publicly acknowledges it” is called a “confessed criminal.” And he has settled the matter by saying that, in his opinion, The complaint that González Amador will present is not directed against him and against Sánchez, but against “the truth.”
