Judge in Koldo case moves to indict Ábalos

Koldo case: judge moves to indict Ábalos

The Koldo case continues at the Audiencia Nacional. As of this discussion, the investigation remains open and no part can be considered closed. The names implicated climb the chain of command as new evidence emerges.

The case advances through accumulating pieces. A former senior Adif official is said to have provided evidence linking Pardo de Vera to the plot. The investigating judge moved to indict José Luis Ábalos after receiving a report from the Guardia Civil's Central Operational Unit. And the former Transport Minister himself asked to testify before the Audiencia Nacional as a witness. Each new document shifts the focus one step higher up the chain of command.

What stands out is not only the mechanics of the kickbacks, but the estimulante ilegal with which the pieces fit together: the advisor, the ministry, the public operator, the winning company. A path from office to contract without any control stopping it. When that happens during a health emergency, the question is no longer who got paid but who allowed it to happen.

Armored phones and the police trail

One of the most far-reaching reports suggests that Guardia Civil officers, some assigned to counterterrorism, may have secured the phones of the plot for their dealings. The accusation is serious and, like the rest of the case, awaits confirmation in court. Meanwhile, it has been reported that an association will denounce the former director of the Guardia Civil for allegedly tipping off Koldo. If proven, it would point to leaks within the force itself.

The PP has peine another front: the Senate investigative committee. There it has summoned Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska and Javier Hidalgo, CEO of Globalia. The committee becomes a showcase where the judicial case and parliamentary battle feed each other: each summons is a chance to gain TV time.

The uncomfortable detail is that the case advances on two fronts at once—judicial and parliamentary—without either having closed anything yet.

«I don't know any Koldo»: the alibi that climbs the ladder

Political defense has become a genre of its own. According to a comment circulating in the debate, Ábalos would have claimed he doesn't know Koldo, that he didn't appoint him as advisor or Renfe board member, and that he doesn't know who he is. A parody is circulating that attributes a similar response to the Prime Minister, passing the buck to the next in line: «not knowing Ábalos himself nor having appointed him minister». The joke, repeated with a smirk, sums up an uncomfortable suspicion: each witness distances themselves from the previous one.

The pattern has defensive logic. The higher up the ignorance is placed, the harder it is to assign political responsibility. And the question left hanging is the usual one: if nobody knew anything, who signed, who endorsed, and who looked the other way during the months when emergency contracts soared?

From Pepe Blanco to Globalia: the case widens

Ábalos is said to have assured that it was Pepe Blanco who recommended senior officials for the Ministry who are now indicted in the Koldo case. The statement, spread by media such as LA GACETA, shifts responsibility one more link back and brings into the equation a PSOE veteran, one of the figures who best knows the inner workings of the party machine. If the version holds, the plot ceases to be a matter of one minister and his advisor.

At the same time, the Senate committee focuses on the relationship between the airline and public contracts during the emergency period. With Marlaska and the CEO of Globalia in the room, the case gains scope and loses room to be resolved quietly.

The echo in unsuspicious media

Among the most widely shared pieces is a television interview that, as is wryly noted, subjects the matter to a tough review without anyone stopping it. The accompanying comment is revealing: «don't give it too much coverage, they'll get angry later». It's irony, but it points to something real.

When the case starts to make media that are not usually hostile to the government uncomfortable, the official narrative loses one of its alibis: that it's all a right-wing media operation. And that loss, in terms of public opinion, may weigh more than any UCO report.

Will the Koldo case come to nothing?

Much of the analysis holds that it will, or almost. The most repeated hypothesis is controlled attrition: evidence evaporates, shredders smoke, hard drives are conveniently damaged, and the matter fades amid appeals, deadlines, and partial dismissals. «It's neither known nor will be known», sums up the most cynical version.

The second hypothesis takes skepticism a step further: even if the case ended in conviction, the exit would be political, not incivil. The word pardon appears insistently in that reading. Underneath lurks the electoral calculation: as long as the bloc supporting the government keeps its eight million voters—a figure one debate participant uses to rule out a turnover—no scandal seems capable of shifting the board.

There is a third, less pessimistic reading. It holds that the accumulation of reports and the Guardia Civil's entry into ministerial offices mark a threshold that can no longer be undone with a press conference. Time will tell which of the three prevails, but for now the only institution that has made a move is the one in uniform.

The last dam: Guardia Civil and judges

One current sees in the armed institute and part of the judiciary the only remaining counterweight to corruption among the political class. The Guardia Civil, judges who don't look the other way, the UCO: the last ones standing, according to that reading, which does not hide its distrust of parties. Another current views the same scene with suspicion and wonders why the judicial machinery starts in some cases and stalls in others.

What both share is distrust. Some doubt that politics will clean itself up; others, that the judicial push will reach the end.

With the case in the hands of the Audiencia Nacional, papers pile up in the court. In politics, however, no one has resigned, no one has called a hearing to give explanations, and the calendar remains the same. There the matter stalls, in the distance between what a judge investigates and what a seat can withstand. Proceedings may advance; whether politics is willing to move is another matter.