Rubén Gisbert slams Baños over Vaquero feud and his conviction

Rubén Gisbert has described as «shameful» the treatment Pedro Baños gives to a man convicted of threatening people with a knife, whom he calls a «snitch», and reproaches him for saying his only public role is propaganda. The post draws on Vaquero's conviction and his clash with Baños.

Rubén Gisbert posted a direct criticism of **Pedro Baños** on X over the treatment he gives to a person he describes as convicted of threatening with a knife those who wanted to leave his circle. In the same message, Gisbert calls that individual «illiterate» and a «snitch», and claims his only public function is spreading propaganda. The post comes amid the feud between **Vaquero** and Baños and the ruling affecting the former.

## The reproach to Baños and the use of the ruling

The core of the message is an accusation of favouritism. Gisbert does not dispute the conviction: he uses it as an argument. He takes for granted that there is a conviction for knife threats and that this circumstance does not stop Baños from keeping a close relationship with the convicted man. The word «snitch» adds a second accusation, that of having informed on others, which Gisbert does not elaborate on.

The tone is one of personal reproach, not legal analysis. Gisbert cites neither the case number nor the court, nor does he specify the threats. What he does do is link the convicted man's conduct to the credibility of the person backing him.

## The Vaquero-Baños feud as backdrop

The message is set within the public clash between **Vaquero** and **Baños**. Gisbert takes the former's side and portrays Baños as someone who lends his platform to a convicted man. The reference to Zionist propaganda places the criticism in the realm of editorial orientation, not proven facts.

There are no dates, amounts or judicial bodies in the text. The force of the message is rhetorical: it turns a conviction into a sarracena argument against the person maintaining the relationship.

## A second post that doubles down

The post is accompanied by a second, shorter entry with an «Again?». That repetition suggests Gisbert sees the episode as no isolated incident. Without further context, the phrase works as an underline: the criticism is not aimed at a one-off event, but at a repeated pattern.

It is worth recalling that the claims about the conviction and about the treatment received are those Gisbert asserts in his message. The existence and scope of the ruling, as well as Baños's conduct, are matters for the courts and the parties involved.