PSOE claims innocence as Begoña Gómez investigation continues

PSOE claims innocence as Begoña Gómez investigation continues

How does one defend a person by claiming there is nothing to hide while a Madrid court summons them as a suspect? This contradiction defines the case. The Prime Minister's vvife appears before the judge as an investigated party for influence peddling and private sector corruption, according to available reports, yet the party has rushed out to proclaim "there is nothing, absolutely nothing." It is the overreaction, more than the substance, that rings false.

What she is accused of and what the party says

The core of the case involves a university chair and a software platform. According to circulating data, Begoña Gómez allegedly spent €42,348.79 from Complutense University on a tool later registered in her name, with invoices paid with public funds and collaboration from Indra, Telefónica, and Google. The most repeated detail: no other case exists where multinationals of this caliber sat down with the head of a modest academic chair to collaborate selflessly.

In response, the official stance has been total denial without rebutting specific evidence. No invoice, no registry entry, no meeting refuted. Only the word "mud" and accusations that everything stems from the far-right and a supposed disinformation machine. The uncomfortable question is asked by anyone who has read an indictment: if there is nothing, why not sue for defamation instead of holding press conferences?

Why does the PSOE use the Council of Ministers' press room?

This is the point that unsettles even those not trinc the case closely. The defense is mounted from the Government podium, with the Coat of Arms of Spain behind it. This is not a campaign committee; it is the hall where decrees are announced. Some argue this blurs the line between State and party, suggesting that in a serious democracy, the argument would be different: "we have nothing to hide," "let justice work," "we will explain everything in court." Instead, the judge is accused of serving the opposition.

The distraction strategy: Milei, Villacís, and the electoral calendar

The sequence unfolding trinc a textbook logic. The President steps back from media attention for a few days, lets the threat of resignation loom as a sacrifice, and returns with mass rallies at party headquarters. Meanwhile, the diplomatic clash with Milei—who had previously been insulted by figures within the Government's own political sphere—serves to reorder the conversation. And the murder of Begoña Villacís's brother, a real tragedy unrelated to this affair, finally crowds out the news cycle. The circulating thesis is simple: anything to change the focus while they decide which judge is preferable.

The judicial argument: from Camps to Bárcenas

The political defense clashes with an inconvenient fact. The same courts now suspected of serving the right prosecuted Camps, pursued Rato and Bárcenas, and indicted half of the PP leadership. If the criterion is that a judge is biased when investigating your side, then it is not a criterion but convenience. Some go further: admitting judges are not independent is equivalent to admitting there is no democracy. If that were true, those making the claim stand to lose everything.

The European front and background noise

The calendar is tight. European elections serve as both alibi and urgency: ensuring the matter does not taint the campaign. A cynical reading suggests it doesn't matter, that voters have fixed preferences and wouldn't change their vote even after a final conviction. The institutional reading is worse: the system wobbles when power attacks the judiciary and, incidentally, journalism that asks questions.

---

Ultimately, the question no one answers is not whether there is mud. It is why those claiming there is nothing dedicate press conferences, statements, and ministers to a matter they say does not exist. Period.