El linchamiento de un juez
La campaña que ha desatado la izquierda https://www.larazon.es/espana/juez-cita-declarar-como-investigada-begona-gomez_20240604665ee329e73ed600014f4467.html es impresentable. Estamos ante otro caso escandaloso de utilización política de la Justicia,...
La campaña que ha desatado la izquierda política y mediática contra el juez Peinado es impresentable. Estamos ante otro caso escandaloso de utilización política de la Justicia, lo que la izquierda populista iberoamericana llama lawfare, por la vía de intentar amedrentar y descalificar a un magistrado que no hace otra cosa que cumplir sus obligaciones jurisdiccionales. Es interesante la irrupción de estos neojuristas mediáticos formados en Wikipedia y amantes de los argumentarios. Me fascina el conocimiento jurídico que intentan mostrar sin haber estudiado Derecho. Otros son fervorosos seguidores del uso alternativo del Derecho que defendían la inconstitucionalidad de la amnistía y ahora dicen lo contrario. Es insólito cuando lo hacen miembros del Gobierno que intentan hacer méritos ante su presidente.
1
00:00:08.519 --> 00:00:13.119
The lynching of a judge. The
campaign unleashed by the immediatic political left against
2
00:00:13.199 --> 00:00:19.199
the haired judge is unpresentable. This
is another scandalous case of the political use
3
00:00:19.239 --> 00:00:23.640
of justice, what the populist left- wing Ibero- American calls the UFFER,
4
00:00:23.879 --> 00:00:28.320
by trying to intimidate and disqualify a
magistrate who does nothing but fulfil his
5
00:00:28.359 --> 00:00:35.079
jurisdictional obligations. It is interesting the
emergence of these neo- media jurists trained
6
00:00:35.399 --> 00:00:40.399
in Wikipedia and lovers of argumentaries.
I' m fascinated by the legal knowledge
7
00:00:40.560 --> 00:00:44.079
they' re trying to show without
having studied law. Others are fervent supporters
8
00:00:44.119 --> 00:00:48.799
of the alternative use of law,
who defended Amnesty' s unconstitutionality and now
9
00:00:48.840 --> 00:00:53.679
say otherwise. It is unheard of
when members of the government try to make
10
00:00:53.799 --> 00:00:57.960
merit before the President are in their
right to defend Begoña Gómez' s innocence,
11
00:00:58.439 --> 00:01:02.920
But it is not necessary to question
the professionalism of a magistrate who has
12
00:01:02.960 --> 00:01:07.840
an indefensible record, neither can nor
should he defend himself, But it is
13
00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:11.680
shameful that they try to present him
as a political agitator who wants to influence
14
00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:15.879
the elections. By the way,
we Spaniards are not fools and we have
15
00:01:15.959 --> 00:01:19.400
enough criteria to go to vote without
being influenced by the desperate maneuvers of Sanchismo.
16
00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:23.680
I will never criticize Sanchez' s
right to defend his wife' s
17
00:01:23.680 --> 00:01:29.680
innocence, not even her epistolary fervor, although I would appreciate her replacing him
18
00:01:29.760 --> 00:01:34.280
with press conferences with questions or the
appearance of Begoña Gómez. I am convinced
19
00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:38.480
that she is a professional who can
defend herself without the help of this tired
20
00:01:38.519 --> 00:01:42.599
chorus of parrots who repeat the arguments
of the last letter from the President of
21
00:01:42.599 --> 00:01:45.519
the Government. I do not have
a good opinion of the strategy they have
22
00:01:45.560 --> 00:01:48.840
adopted in their legal or communicative defense
of life. He has taught me that
23
00:01:48.879 --> 00:01:53.079
it is best to take the bull
by the horns with permission of urtasum and
24
00:01:53.159 --> 00:01:56.359
go with the truth ahead. When
I was Director General of Court Relations,
25
00:01:56.719 --> 00:02:00.000
several ministers came to see me in
my office with a problem as well as
26
00:01:59.799 --> 00:02:04.560
a delicate one. I merely asked
him if we had anything to hide and
27
00:02:04.560 --> 00:02:08.080
after knowing the answer, I said
that we should give all the information,
28
00:02:08.960 --> 00:02:13.400
although preserving confidentiality, to what we
were legally obliged of the companies concerned.
29
00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:16.919
The solution is never lynching a judge
or attacking the messenger. It' s
30
00:02:17.120 --> 00:02:20.120
so obvious that he doesn' t
deserve any further comment.
