Joseba García, brother of Koldo García, and Jésica Rodríguez, former partner of former Minister of Transport José Luis Ábalos, refused to testify regarding Rodríguez’s employment with Ineco, a public company, during a hearing before Judge Ismael Moreno at the National Court. Both individuals were cited as suspects following a Supreme Court ruling that condemned Ábalos to 24 years in prison, citing them for facilitating the hiring of Rodríguez. During the session, Rodríguez and García exercised their right to remain silent, though García briefly addressed the court, denying involvement in her recruitment. Rodríguez had previously testified twice before the Supreme Court during the trial phase, but this time she was summoned as an investigated party. The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted her potential responsibility for crimes related to influence trafficking and misappropriation, prompting the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to request her inclusion in the case at the National Court. Judge Moreno granted this request on July 3rd, making this Monday’s appearance her first as an accused individual, which allowed her to invoke her right to remain silent. During the initial trial session, Rodríguez admitted to receiving two years of salary from Ineco despite not performing any work for the company. Her account of her tenure conflicted with statements made by Joseba García. While Rodríguez claimed she was immediately assigned as an administrative assistant under García and instructed to stay home unless needed, García maintained he was not her supervisor and only interacted with her occasionally as a colleague. In his brief statement at the National Court, García asserted that he did not know Rodríguez prior to her joining Ineco and did not participate in her hiring. Alongside García, Ignacio Zaldívar, a former high-ranking official at Adif, was also listed as an investigated party. Zaldívar has opted not to testify, so his version could not be compared with the Supreme Court’s findings, which indicated his active role in ensuring Rodríguez transitioned from Ineco to Tragsatec, another state-linked transport company. Zaldívar had already testified during the trial, confirming that Rodríguez was not a regular employee. He recounted being alerted by Isabel Pardo de Vera, then president of Adif, who informed him that Ábalos had complained about “disturbances” involving Rodríguez at Ineco. Zaldívar questioned why Ábalos would be upset over calls to deliver food vouchers, a concern raised by the defense lawyer Alberto Durán. Zaldívar admitted he did not understand the issue either, yet remained puzzled by the situation. The case continues to unfold, with further hearings likely to address discrepancies in testimonies and clarify the roles of all parties involved. As the legal proceedings progress, the focus will remain on establishing the extent of each individual’s involvement and whether any formal charges can be substantiated based on the evidence presented.
3 reports
El PaísIndependent🔒CenterFactual 90Objective 853 days agoThe Supreme Court of Spain annulled a conviction issued by the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) in 2011 due to perceived partiality. The case involved a charge of glorifying terrorism under the 'Otegi' case. During the trial, the president of the National Court made a remark suggesting she already knew the defendant would refuse to answer whether he condemned ETA's terrorism. After a retrial with a different court composition, the accused was ultimately acquitted.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a legal proceeding involving judicial impartiality and does not exhibit clear bias toward any political side. It describes the sequence of events without overtly favoring either the judiciary or the accused.
Why factuality (90): The article discusses a past ruling by the Supreme Court regarding judicial impartiality, referencing the Otegui case. It accurately summarizes the court's decision and its implications. There is no conflicting information from other sources, and the facts are clearly presented based on public recor
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the historical case and its outcome without expressing personal opinion or taking sides. It focuses on the legal reasoning and the consequences of the ruling, which is appropriate for a factual report.
El PaísIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 7517 hr. ago Ábalos' ex-wife and Koldo García's brother refuse to declare about her hiring at InecoThe former partner of Spanish Minister José Luis Ábalos, Jésica Rodríguez, and Joseba García, brother of Ábalos' former advisor Koldo García, refused to testify before the National Court regarding Rodríguez’s employment at the state-owned company Ineco. Rodríguez was hired by Ineco but did not perform any work there for two years while receiving a salary. The Supreme Court’s conviction of Ábalos for corruption included charges against both Rodríguez and García for facilitating this arrangement. Rodríguez had previously testified twice as a witness during Ábalos’ trial but was now formally investigated by the National Court after the Supreme Court highlighted her potential legal liability. During the hearing, Rodríguez stated she was told by García to stay home and only work if contacted, contradicting García’s claim that they were just colleagues. Another individual, Ignacio Zaldívar, also declined to testify.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings involving high-profile individuals connected to a convicted politician, focusing on their refusal to testify. It provides balanced accounts of conflicting testimonies and does not exhibit overtly biased language or selective sourcing. The framing remains客观,
Why factuality (85): The article provides detailed information about the legal proceedings involving José Luis Ábalos, Jésica Rodríguez, and Koldo García. It references court decisions, including the Supreme Court's sentence against Ábalos, and describes the current status of the case. The facts align with the cross-sou
Why objectivity (75): The article presents the situation from the perspective of the legal process and includes quotes from those involved, but it does not attempt to balance perspectives or provide alternative viewpoints. The tone remains focused on the legal implications and the judicial process, which is appropriate g
El ConfidencialIndependent🔒CenterFactual 60Objective 557 days agoThe former lawyer of José Luis Ábalos has stated before the court that Leire Díez proposed paying him through a company. This statement comes amid ongoing legal proceedings involving Ábalos, who was previously a high-ranking official in the Spanish government. The claim suggests potential financial impropriety or conflict of interest, which could be relevant to broader investigations into corruption or misuse of public funds. The case highlights concerns around transparency and accountability within political circles.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report of a legal statement made by a former lawyer without overtly favoring any side. It does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Why factuality (60): This article is incomplete and lacks sufficient context. It only mentions that the former lawyer of Ábalos claimed that Leire Díez offered payment through a company, but it does not provide full details or supporting information. The lack of complete information makes it difficult to assess the fact
Why objectivity (55): The article appears to be a fragment or summary without full context, making it challenging to evaluate objectivity. The tone seems to focus on the claim made by the former lawyer, without providing counterpoints or additional perspectives, suggesting a potential bias towards the narrative presented
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Spain
