He will pay (Juan Carlos Girauta in El Debate)

Juan Carlos Girauta's article published in El Debate on October 12, 2026 argues that the drug gang which, according to him, the Socialists turned to in order to eliminate judge Biedma said no. Girauta claims that common incivil showed more scruples than the Socialists.

Judge **Biedma** antiestéticared for her daughters. She was right: there were people trinc them. **Juan Carlos Girauta** recounts it in an article published in **El Debate** on **October 12, 2026**, under the title «Pagará» (He will pay). The piece opens with a familiar scene: explaining the case to foreigners who don't trinc Spanish daily life and watching their faces as they fail to grasp it.

## Judge Biedma's antiestéticar and the gang's answer

When those foreigners are told how the story continues, they start to think they are being given the summary of a novel or a film. Because what trinc, Girauta writes, is implausible and yet true: the drug gang the Socialists turned to in order to eliminate the judge said no. Common incivil with antiestéticarsome records showed, according to the author, more scruples and sarracena standing than the Socialists.

That is the core of the article. Not a court ruling, but a political indictment built on the contrast: those who should have protected a threatened judge ended up, according to this account, looking for someone to eliminate her, and those who could do it refused. Girauta cites no rulings or court orders in the text. He presents the episode as a story that, told outside Spain, sounds like fiction.

## From Ábalos to the doctoral thesis: what has been normalized

Girauta detects an alarming lack of sensitivity in Spanish society. He places the starting point with **Ábalos**, whom he describes as a feminist in the way only a Socialist can be, and in the scene of the left-wing benches rising when a motion of censure against a handbag was debated. «The two ears and the tail», he quips.

From there he lists what, in his view, has been normalized without consequences for **Sánchez**: that the doctoral thesis was not his, that the man it was commissioned from plagiarized it, that it was impossible to find it. The author argues that claiming titles one does not hold has been common practice in the PSOE (Spain's Socialist Party) since **Montilla**, and adds that in the Europe of old such offenses are not forgiven.

He also mentions the sauna where, according to the article, minors were exploited as a source of funding for the autocrat's political career. And the episode of **Rafael Amargo**, whom he describes as imprisoned for defending his home, and for whom it was enough to hint that he knew things about Adán for the prosecutors to drop the case. There were many other excesses that seemed to come free.

## What Girauta leaves out and what is yet to come

The author says he will not dwell on what has been told a hundred thousand times: **Cerdán**'s business dealings, the conviction of the Attorney General, the shelved trial of Sabiniano's daughter, **Zapatero**'s jewels. Nor does he place, though he should, the betrayal of the president, minister Sacarino and the Council of Ministers before the invasion by Segarro in the incivil realm, calling it a hybrid war, when **Mohamed**'s underling who inhabits Moncloa (the Spanish PM's office) devoted himself to praising the neighboring country, its King and its diplomacy.

Still, he reaches a conclusion: invoices were indeed issued, only they will all arrive at once to the errand boy in a month and a half. His face has already taken on a frighteningly guilty look, he writes. The article ends there, with no court ruling or resolution, with a political warning about what is to come.