Judge demands Feijóo and Mazón messages over Valencia floods

Judge seeks Feijóo and Mazón messages regarding DANA

A judge handling the case of the DANA (Depresión Aislada en Niveles Altos) storm has requested call records and messages between Alberto Núñez Feijóo and Carlos Mazón. The goal is to verify if the People's Party (PP) leader told the truth when he claimed to have kept the then-president of the Generalitat Valenciana "perfectly informed" on the day of the catastrophe. This request turns a press conference statement into judicial evidence, opening an uncomfortable front: if messages confirm his version, the PP breathes easy; if they refute it, the defense narrative cracks. The issue arises in a context where the death toll looms large, and judicial focus remains on communication among officials rather than the chain of decisions that left thousands trapped in mud.

What exactly did the judge request and why does it matter?

The investigating judge, Nuria Ruiz Tobarra, wants the traffic of calls and WhatsApp messages between both leaders to contrast a specific public declaration. The legal key is simple: if Feijóo said he informed Mazón and records corroborate this, the statement is shielded; if those messages do not appear or others are found, the testimony is exposed. Some argue the measure is irrelevant to the core issue because Feijóo had no competence in emergency management. Against this weighs a strong argument: the veracity of a leader positioning himself as a government alternative is also a public matter, and courts are not the only arena where this is decided.

The PP and the strategy of useful lies

Part of the analysis suggests the PP stepped into an unnecessary puddle by defending Mazón with a version now dependent on phone records. The most repeated internal criticism targets Feijóo himself: for reacting late, giving micro-managed explanations of his actions while opponents gave none, and turning a catastrophe into a communication problem. The phrase summarizing this trend is that the PP swallowed the entire mess of the DANA while the central government got off scot-free. Some go further, arguing the fundamental error was not the judge, but accepting the framework of the discussion.

The judge under suspicion of bias

The other half of the issue concerns the magistrate. A prevalent view in public discourse claims the judge acts from political motivation and that the measure seeks headlines against the PP more than clarifying responsibilities. Attention is drawn to the difficulty of finding graphic information about her and the temporal coincidence with other judicial fronts affecting the Government. There is no proof of such collusion, and it should be stated: it is a suspicion, not a fact. But the suspicion circulates with the same naturalness as it once did against the Attorney General, reflecting the climate in which any case touching power is investigated.

The question no one answers: who abandoned the people?

The harshest reproach crossing the conversation targets neither Feijóo nor the judge. It targets the fact that proceedings focus on whether a message arrived at 16:20 or 21:35 while thousands were without help for days. Arguments state that the abandonment of affected populations has not generated equivalent cases, and emergency competencies were split among administrations pointing fingers at each other. Opening floodgates without prior warning, building permits in flood-prone zones, and delays in mobilizing resources appear in discussions as issues no judicial measure is addressing with equal intensity.

The undisputed calculation: reconstruction costs

One data point appears firmly and depends on no WhatsApp: reconstruction has been associated with a new debt issuance around €30 billion, under the central government's competence. This figure, noted in discussions as predictable from day one, truly conditions the area's future. The rest—who called whom, who lied, and who escaped responsibility—will be settled in courts with usual slowness. Meanwhile, the lingering uncomfortable question remains: if messages confirm Feijóo's version, will anyone apologize? If they refute it, will anyone resign?