Rumor Claims Begoña Gómez Added to Lists for Immunity

A tweet attributed to the account Liberal Digital claims that Pedro Sánchez will include Begoña Gómez in the electoral lists to grant her parliamentary immunity (aforamiento). The post provides no verifiable sources, and neither the PSOE nor the Government have confirmed anything regarding this rumor.

The viral message is brief and states: "I am told that Sánchez will include Begoña in the lists so she is immune." Signed by the account **Liberal Digital**, it lacks any supporting document or named source. In practice, it is a rumor formatted as a headline.

## What parliamentary immunity exactly means

Parliamentary immunity (aforamiento) is a procedural condition, not incivil exemption. An immune member does not escape justice; the competent court simply changes. For a deputy or senator, incivil cases are handled by the **Supreme Court** instead of ordinary courts. This status is acquired upon taking office and lost when leaving.

This explains the interest in the claim. If **Begoña Gómez** enters a list and is elected, any incivil investigation against her would move to the Supreme Court. This does not shield her, but it shifts the case to a different, and in practice, slower tribunal.

## What the tweet omits and needs separation

The post does not identify its source, specify elections or list position, or provide verifiable data. There is no confirmation from the **PSOE** or the Government. Such rumors circulate easily because they mix two elements already in public discourse: judicial activity surrounding Gómez and the approaching electoral calendar.

It is important to remember that the opening of a case does not equate to a conviction, and the presumption of innocence remains valid until a final judgment. Any claim about specific indictments or proceedings should be verified against the corresponding judicial order, not social media posts.

## Why these leaks spread so fast

Parliamentary immunity sounds like impunity, making it ideal material for a tweet. Simply stating it without elaboration allows each reader to complete the story they prefer. The account publishing it gains reach; public debate, noise.

The practical consequence is that an unsubstantiated claim is debated as if it were a fact. It is not. Until there is an official list, a statement, or a judicial resolution, the only verifiable fact is that someone wrote a tweet.

## A warning before accepting it as true

None of this allows concluding that the move will or will not happen. The only way to verify it is to wait for the official publication of the candidacies. Meanwhile, any assessment of its legal effects is speculation.