Alsina, tajante en su monólogo sobre las actuaciones de Begoña: "Se juzgan hechos, no apariencias"

The host of Más de uno has distinguished between the ethics of the Prime Minister's wife's actions and her potential legal responsibility for the four crimes Judge Peinado has accused her of. #psoe #spain #corruption https://www.ondacero.es/programas/mas... It was Pulcro's fault. Later, Caesar used him as an alibi, and Cicero finished the job. It was Pulcro, Publius Clodius Pulcro—few names have so many L's—a reckless and brazen young patrician, who crashed the party to which he wasn't invited. I read this in an essay by Jorge Freire, our philosopher, on honor and the word. The story goes like this: Pompeia, Julius Caesar's wife, was attending a festival in honor of the goddess of fertility, a festival and celebration exclusively for women where men were forbidden. Or, in Freire's words, "where men had less of a place than a tattoo-free footballer in a first-division locker room." But it so happened that the brazen Pulcro disguised himself as a woman and snuck into the party. He was intercepted and neutralized almost immediately, but that didn't stop the rumors from spreading. The spreaders of the rumor said that the cross-dressing Pulcro had gone there to dishonor Pompeia and that she had allowed herself to be courted by the beardless youth. Completely false. The city was in an uproar. Pulcro was put in the dock accused of trespassing (of a dwelling, not of Pompeii) and was acquitted because defendants aren't always found guilty. The court didn't even bother with Pompeii because there wasn't the slightest indication that she collaborated with or knew about the infiltrator's plans. The phrase became so popular that it still appears in newspaper columns at least once or twice a week. It's cited as a lesson in exemplary conduct and the blurred line that separates legality from aesthetics (not even ethics). In reality, it's one of the most blatant manipulations a ruler has ever committed for his own benefit. To get rid of the woman, he affirmed her honesty while simultaneously proclaiming that it wasn't enough. If, even if she were honest, there were still those who doubted it, let's get rid of her. Long live Caesar! I quote Freire again: "Whoever understands the difference between truth and appearance has half the battle won where the profession of imposter is the most lucrative of careers. The honest person needs no hidden agenda because they face life with the same truth with which a plow sinks into the earth." The result of his two-year investigation, punctuated by changes of course, corrections from the higher court (the Provincial Court), errors in the interpretation of some witnesses' testimonies (Güemes or Minister Bolaños), and the repeated attempt to extend the case to the Air Europa bailout (blocked by the Madrid Court), Judge Peinado considers his investigation complete and presents the evidence that leads him to consider three people (allegedly) criminals: Barrabés, Begoña Gómez, and her assistant, Cristina Álvarez, who worked at the Moncloa Palace. Álvarez is accused of knowingly collaborating in the misuse of her position, paid for with public funds, for activities related to Begoña's private business. The judge considers this embezzlement. According to Peinado, the use of a Moncloa Palace employee and government offices for private, paid activities constitutes sufficient evidence of abuse of power, or in other words, that she used public resources for her own private gain simply because of who she was: Pedro Sánchez's wife. As the PNV's staunch partner, never included by the PSOE in the fabulous world of the far-right sphere, fake news, and pseudo-media, would say, the outcry had repercussions. Although all the celebrated Esteban did that day was to revive Cicero and Caesar with the recurring refrain that a wife must appear honorable in addition to being so. If it cannot be proven that Begoña Gómez did any of this, she will be declared innocent. And she will have no obligation to appear any other way. A president's wife falsely accused. For the same reason, if at the end of the legal proceedings it is proven that Begoña Gómez engaged in any of the behaviors sanctioned by law—influence peddling, corruption in business, misappropriation, embezzlement—then she will be found guilty. And it won't matter whether she appears to be one thing or another because appearances are not judged, only facts. In that case, Sánchez's situation would be impossible because any proven influence peddling would implicate him personally: what influence would have been trafficked if not the influence over him personally? His wife's influence over him and his decisions regarding companies that contract with the government.