The government challenges the Supreme Court instructor: “Some judges are acting in ways that are hard to comprehend.”

The Government continues to support the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, until the end and escalates its criticism of the Supreme Court judge, Ángel Hurtado. The Executive does not accuse him of judicial misconduct, the most serious offense for judges—making an unjust decision knowingly—but it almost conveys the same message in different words to avoid implying criminal actions by a magistrate while still sending a political message.

Spokesperson Pilar Alegría was direct in a well-prepared response during the press conference after the Cabinet meeting. “It is evident that at this point some judges are doing things that are hard to understand,” she stated when asked about Judge Hurtado’s ruling. She was also asked if the Executive believes the judge is making knowingly unjust decisions, if he is committing judicial misconduct. She did not reject the term, although she stuck to her prepared phrase. “I think the expression ‘hard to understand’ explains it well. There is no clear evidence pointing to the Attorney General as a leak source. Several journalists explained that they had that information, not from the prosecutor, and their testimonies were disregarded. The expression is cautious but sufficiently explicit,” she concluded, subtly implying the notion of misconduct without naming it.

The Executive is being very harsh regarding the judge’s ruling, which they criticize even more strongly in private. This is why they defend the Attorney General, believing he is being prosecuted unjustly and without any evidence. Hence, they break the long-standing criterion in the PSOE that a leader should resign when facing trial. The Executive appeals to the exceptional nature of the judge’s actions to justify their equally exceptional response, which involves defending the Attorney General until the end, practically until a conviction, something they see as completely impossible without evidence.

“This Government maintains its support for the Attorney General,” Alegría stated. “I categorically deny that there were any instructions from the presidency. This never happened. We regret that the Supreme Court has made these assertions without any evidence. There is no proof that the Attorney General leaked anything. Several journalists declared that they had the information several hours prior, and those testimonies were thrown out. We uphold the presumption of innocence, especially in this case. This is not a firm ruling; an appeal is possible, and we express our utmost confidence in the justice system, in the honesty and good work of judges and prosecutors,” the spokesperson concluded.

The Government believes the judge has made a serious mistake with a ruling that provides no solid evidence to incriminate the prosecutor and is convinced that a significant portion of public opinion, according to internal polls, is beginning to shift in light of evidence that some judges— the Government always insists that they are just a few, not many or a majority—are making borderline decisions to harm the Executive. Thus, for months now, the Executive has changed its usual response of “total respect for the actions of judges” to a counterattack with severity against each controversial decision that harms it.