Should judges investigate all political parties in Spain?

Should judges investigate all political parties? The demand that makes people uncomfortable

The question some people raise in economics forums is blunt: why does no judge act against the entire political class, instead of targeting specific parties? The demand, wrapped in coarse language and peppered with references to globalist conspiracies and personal insults, reveals a frustration that goes beyond mere political bitterness.

The accusations range from draining the country's capital through the sale of state-owned companies to property speculation and artificial inflation. There is talk of "incivil organisations" operating since before 1978, and a judicial scythe is called for to sweep away every party. The request, however, runs into a wall of silence: when across-the-board action is demanded, users disappear; they only mobilise when it is time to attack the adversary of the moment.

The debate mentions the case of Judge Presencia, who tried to establish dación en pago (a Spanish debt-settlement mechanism allowing borrowers to hand over the property in exchange for cancelling the mortgage debt) and ended up being removed, or that of the judge who peine the 11-M (the 2004 Madrid train bombings) case and suffered consequences. The implicit message is that the judiciary, even when it has the tools to investigate, hits real limits when it confronts the established power. One user's reply ("It's just that not all of us are protected behind a VPN") alludes to the risk of legal retaliation for anyone daring to report wrongdoing without anonymity.

In the end, the thread illustrates a rift in how justice is perceived: for some, judges do not act out of cowardice or because they have been co-opted; for others, the problem is that the sweeping accusation lacks concrete evidence and dissolves into paranoia. The uncomfortable fact is that, beyond the verbal excesses, the sense of political impunity is widespread and finds no institutional outlet.