Rita Maestre Breaks Silence on Errejón: 'I Feel Deeply Deceived'

Rita Maestre Breaks Silence on Errejón

What did Rita Maestre know? The Más Madrid spokesperson in the Madrid City Council took three days to address the allegations against Íñigo Errejón, her partner for years. She released a statement on X admitting she feels "deeply deceived." The text describes a man with "multiple faces": a "good boyfriend" who, according to her account, returned home normally after allegedly assaulting a 20-year-old woman in a hotel. This declaration opens a new front: the debate is no longer just about what Errejón did, but about what those close to him knew.

What Exactly Does Maestre's Statement Say?

The written statement trinc three days of silence and begins with an uncomfortable admission: the information emerging throughout the week overwhelms and shocks her as she is "discovering some episodes" reported by victims that occurred while she was still in a relationship with "the aggressor." She expresses respect and support for all victims, noting she is "starting to digest" their testimonies.

The harshest part of the text describes this double life. "A good boyfriend was simultaneously a misogynist who returned home normally after assaulting a 20-year-old woman in a hotel," she states. She adds a question many ask quietly: "It is impossible that each of us who shared parts of our lives with him doesn't wonder how we couldn't see we were dealing with someone with these multiple faces, how we could be blinded by such manipulation."

Was There Cover-Up in His Political Circle?

Maestre responds firmly to speculation about her level of knowledge. "I have not been part of any cover-up nor do I have knowledge of any concealment of any assault or violent act, because it did not happen," she asserts, adding: "Rather, I feel deeply deceived, and that deception is devastating." The former Podemos member justifies speaking about her private life—always guarded—to answer those who, she says, "recklessly speculate" about her complicity in personal or political spaces.

There is a nuance worth noting: the spokesperson argues that it now seems "very easy and tempting to place the various pieces of information under a spotlight of obviousness that simply does not exist." In other words, she denies that everything was evident to those inside the circle.

Shifting Focus: From Victims to the Inner Circle

In the final section, Maestre attempts to refocus the issue: "Now what matters is the pain of the victims, who must feel respected and supported. What matters is eradicating sens behaviors and assaults from politics and society." She also complains that public discourse revolves around "the exception of the scandalous rather than the normality that sustains so much everyday violence," and criticizes the scrutiny faced by women associated with an aggressor: "We are tired of not being believed and being questioned when we are assaulted."

The reaction to the text gauges the mood well. Some read it as an exercise in honesty by someone who was also deceived. Others see it as a rescue operation: the person denouncing the deception is the one now occupying the political space left by the accused. Suspicion is not new in politics, but here it has a particular edge, mixing intimacy, power, and career.

The Underlying Issue: What Is a Crime and What Isn't?

Beyond the specific case, the matter uncovers a legal debate not resolved by a statement. Some argue that the published accounts do not yet describe an assault classified as a crime, and that parts of the narrative may be time-barred. Against this stands the counter-argument: absence of conviction does not equal innocence, and the difficulty of proving certain behaviors does not make them acceptable. The only reasonable legal path, as some analyses point out, is to ensure that if crimes are alleged, they are adjudicated before a judge with legal representation.

Meanwhile, the noise has a collateral effect no one disputes: public conversation has stopped discussing politics and started talking about hotel rooms, elevators, and who looked the other way. In terms of wear and tear, this costs more than any statement.

---

In the end, the question is not what Rita Maestre knew. The question is what we all do with what we now know.